Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/7/2002 1:17:24 PM EDT
Legendary Smith & Wesson Receives Strongly Renewed Trade Acceptance PR Newswire March 6, 2002 American Owned Firearms Manufacturer Enjoys Enthusiastic Reception At Las Vegas SHOT Show * SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., March 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (formerly Saf-T-Hammer Corporation) (OTC Bulletin Board: SAFH), today announced that the number of dealers visiting the company's booth at the SHOT Show (Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trades) in Las Vegas in February was more than twice that of any previous trade show. The SHOT Show is the outdoor industry 's annual cornerstone event. "The fact that Smith & Wesson is again 'American Made and American Owned' has been very well received and has led to a groundswell of support over the past several months," said Robert Scott, president of Smith & Wesson. "We are tremendously encouraged by the continuing, positive response to the company's new direction following its acquisition by Saf-T-Hammer in May of last year." The dramatic increase in dealer interest at the recent Shot Show reflects the renewed acceptance of the Smith & Wesson product line. Smith & Wesson celebrates its 150th year in business this year, a distinction held by only a handful of U.S. companies. The return of Smith & Wesson to U.S. ownership and the positive resolution of several industry related issues, combined with the dramatic financial turnaround of the company brought about by the new management team, have driven the resurgence of sales, and the positive and enthusiastic industry endorsement. Other recent trade shows have similarly reflected a dramatic improvement in trade acceptance of Smith & Wesson since it has been returned to American ownership. This is validated by dealer orders written at two subsequent buying group shows, The Sports Inc. Show held in Phoenix February 15 - 18th and the Nation's Best Sports Show held in Ft. Worth February 23 - 26th. The orders written at both of these shows were more than double those written at the same events in 2001. "The strong and broad-based influx of orders reflects both dealer optimism for the industry in general and clear support of the 'New' Smith & Wesson. This validation of our business is quite gratifying," said Scott. About Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation is the parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., one of the world's leading producers of quality handguns, law enforcement products and firearm safety and security products. Law enforcement personnel, military personnel, target shooters, hunters, collectors and firearms enthusiasts throughout the world have used the company's handguns with confidence for 150 years. Backed by a highly experienced engineering staff, the Specialty Services division offers high quality custom manufacturing capabilities to many industrial clients. Smith & Wesson Corp. also manufactures handcuffs, and markets Smith & Wesson branded bicycles, apparel and other products.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 1:59:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: Smith & Wesson . today announced that the number of dealers visiting the company's booth at the SHOT Show (Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Trades) in Las Vegas in February was more than twice that of any previous trade show. . . The dramatic increase in dealer interest at the recent Shot Show reflects the renewed acceptance of the Smith & Wesson product line. Smith & Wesson celebrates its 150th year in business this year, a distinction held by only a handful of U.S. companies. The return of Smith & Wesson to U.S. ownership and the positive resolution of several industry related issues,
View Quote
Just because they get double number of people indicates more business for the company?? Colt(1836-1986) is the other firearms company that has celebrated 150 years.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 2:13:41 PM EDT
I believe them. The gun rags have been coming out and saying of late that S&W has learned their lesson, paid the price, and "Hey, they're american owned now!" so why don't we just end this boycott thing and be friends again. While I'm not advocating we drive S&W out of business no matter what they do, personally I want a VERY public statement that they repudiate the deal they made with the Clintons, that they would never do such a thing again, and that they support the 2nd amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 2:27:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak: I believe them. The gun rags have been coming out and saying of late that S&W has learned their lesson, paid the price, and "Hey, they're american owned now!" so why don't we just end this boycott thing and be friends again. While I'm not advocating we drive S&W out of business no matter what they do, personally I want a VERY public statement that they repudiate the deal they made with the Clintons, that they would never do such a thing again, and that they support the 2nd amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
View Quote
I am sure the new owners would like very much to tell the world what it can do with the lawsuits, but several of them are still active, such as the one in Boston, in S&W's home state, Massachusetts. Indeed one of the key provisions of the sale agreements with its former owner was that the new owner would not repudiate any existing committments or agreements. (Hell of a lot of good those agreements w/Lil Cuomo and HUD did for the previous owners, eh?) What sort of progress is being made behind the scenes, I don't know, but as long as GWB and Ashcroft are in power, these suits will go nowhere. But- if a Demorat wins in 2004, expect these lawsuits to come back big-time. The grabbers are just holding these lawsuits in the wings to hold over gunmakers' heads.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 2:42:10 PM EDT
Although I own many fine S&W products, they were purchased prior to the gov't agreement. I have not and will not buy another new S&W product until they disentangle themselves from this agreement. I don't outright boycott Ruger, but I don't own very many of their products and don't buy any of them new. Damn the gun rags, I discontinued or didn't renew to any that have outright supported S&W in print or editorials. And told the editor's why!!
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 2:59:23 PM EDT
Screw them! Let the government and police departs keep them afloat. I'll never ever buy another Smith and Wesson!
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 3:37:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Schnert: Screw them! Let the government and police departs keep them afloat. I'll never ever buy another Smith and Wesson!
View Quote
Ditto. Isn't a grudge a bitch Safe T Hammer...
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 4:03:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Schnert: Screw them! Let the government and police departs keep them afloat. I'll never ever buy another Smith and Wesson!
View Quote
Good idea. Lets not have any gun makers. Dumbass[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 4:15:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By Schnert: Screw them! Let the government and police departs keep them afloat. I'll never ever buy another Smith and Wesson!
View Quote
Good idea. Lets not have any gun makers. Dumbass[rolleyes]
View Quote
There is a magnificent difference between ALL GUN MAKERS and the one who sold your rights to the highest bidder. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 4:30:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By Schnert: Screw them! Let the government and police departs keep them afloat. I'll never ever buy another Smith and Wesson!
View Quote
Good idea. Lets not have any gun makers. Dumbass[rolleyes]
View Quote
They all make agreements like Shit&Wesson and you won't be able to buy from any of them. AT-MTHRFCKN-ZACTLY what ar50troll said.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 4:42:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar50troll: There is a magnificent difference between ALL GUN MAKERS and the one who sold your rights to the highest bidder. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]
View Quote
Or not. We can't buy from Remington because they liability-proofed their rifles with that stupid bolt safety. We can't buy from Colt because they PCed their rifles before the assault weapons ban. We can't buy from Ruger because Bill supported a 10-round limit once upon a time. We can't buy from Smith & Wesson because they made a shitty deal under English management to end lawsuits and stay in business. We can't buy from..... About all you'll have left for handguns will be Springfield and Glock. Springfield's pistols are great, but I hate Glocks. Neither produce revolvers. To quote you: "Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]"
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 5:00:19 PM EDT
Good idea. Lets not have any gun makers. Dumbass All true, all true
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 5:28:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By ar50troll: There is a magnificent difference between ALL GUN MAKERS and the one who sold your rights to the highest bidder. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]
View Quote
Or not. We can't buy from Remington because they liability-proofed their rifles with that stupid bolt safety. We can't buy from Colt because they PCed their rifles before the assault weapons ban. We can't buy from Ruger because Bill supported a 10-round limit once upon a time. We can't buy from Smith & Wesson because they made a shitty deal under English management to end lawsuits and stay in business. We can't buy from..... About all you'll have left for handguns will be Springfield and Glock. Springfield's pistols are great, but I hate Glocks. Neither produce revolvers. To quote you: "Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]"
View Quote
Perhaps we should reevaluate who the dumbass is. How about HK, Sig, Beretta. Christ, man, Springfield and Glock are not the only other pistol makers. I suggest you read the entire Smith and Wesson agreement before you go defending them. If they had their way, we would not be able to own AR15 rifles. As I said, GO READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! The same goes for you, thewind. You people amaze me. No other gun maker sold out like Smith and Wesson. Some people slam Ruger, but they never sold out like S&W. Neither did Colt. Again I say, READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND SMITH AND WESSON, dumbasses. This was a sellout to the max, they were telling dealers that if you want to sell their product, you could not sell AR15s or any other falsely labeled 'assault rifles'. You can defend them if you agree with the 'assault rifle' ban, otherwise, you don't have a clue.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 5:41:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By ar50troll: There is a magnificent difference between ALL GUN MAKERS and the one who sold your rights to the highest bidder. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]
View Quote
Or not. We can't buy from Remington because they liability-proofed their rifles with that stupid bolt safety. We can't buy from Colt because they PCed their rifles before the assault weapons ban. We can't buy from Ruger because Bill supported a 10-round limit once upon a time. We can't buy from Smith & Wesson because they made a shitty deal under English management to end lawsuits and stay in business. We can't buy from..... About all you'll have left for handguns will be Springfield and Glock. Springfield's pistols are great, but I hate Glocks. Neither produce revolvers. To quote you: "Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dumbass is... Touch'e [50]"
View Quote
So what's your point here Redman? That sooner or later every manufacturer is going to cave so let's just accept it?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 5:48:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: Perhaps we should reevaluate who the dumbass is. How about HK, Sig, Beretta. Christ, man, Springfield and Glock are not the only other pistol makers. I suggest you read the entire Smith and Wesson agreement before you go defending them. If they had their way, we would not be able to own AR15 rifles. As I said, GO READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! The same goes for you, thewind. You people amaze me. No other gun maker sold out like Smith and Wesson. Some people slam Ruger, but they never sold out like S&W. Neither did Colt. Again I say, READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND SMITH AND WESSON, dumbasses. This was a sellout to the max, they were telling dealers that if you want to sell their product, you could not sell AR15s or any other falsely labeled 'assault rifles'. You can defend them if you agree with the 'assault rifle' ban, otherwise, you don't have a clue.
View Quote
Wow, easy their tiger. You don't want to have a coronary do you? I've read the entire agreement, but I still don't see the sense in driving one of the best handgun makers in the world out of business because what its [i]former[/i] management copped to. Driving them out of business will set a nasty precedent, one that the anti-gun folks will use against us. Furthermore, I know a couple of S&W stocking dealers, and none of them hesitate for an instant to sell evil guns. The fact the S&W is trying to get its way out of the deal and isn't enforcing a single part of it say a lot. There is only one small problem, it's a legal freakin' deal bubba, they can't get out of it unless somebody goes to jail and pays a hefty fine. Was I pissed about their deal, yes. Did I boycott, yes. Do I think driving them out of business because of a deal made by the [i]former[/i] managers will accomplish anything that will help our cause, no fucking way. Sig and HK could care less if all guns are made illegal here. They don't support RKBA and they are all too ready to submit to import restrictions on their weapons. Have they supported the NRA or GOA, or any other similar organization? Nope. So, are you going to boycott them too? They sell out everytime the BATF redefines import regulations without a single peep. They could at least make some effort to prevent such restrictions, but they don't. I suggest you start using your brain instead of making rash, unreasoned reactions to stimuli. The antis do that, are you one of them?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:00:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: So what's your point here Redman? That sooner or later every manufacturer is going to cave so let's just accept it?
View Quote
No. I don't think we should accept it, but it is OUR responsibility to spend money and time to prevent gun makers being put in that kind of situation. People bitch and moan about how S&W (and Ruger, and Colt) have sold out, but they never put their money where there mouth is. Gun companies work on a pretty slim profit margin, they can't afford to be paying lawyer's fees all the time. I write my representatives weekly, I send money to the NRA-ILA, and any other local pro-2nd legislative groups. I send the gun makers emails on a regualr basis too (not that it really does any good, but they hear my voice). We need to let them know that we don't like what they did, which we have done successfully. I'm pretty sure that the other gun makers in the US (the foreigners couldn't give a shit less) have figured out that there are serious consequences for ditching American citizens. However, I don't see the need to drive out one of the best handgun makers in the business. It accomplishes nothing, other than limiting our choices, and making the other gun makers all too fearful that they might "slip up" and be driven out. The first rule of business is to stay in business. Companies do some pretty stupid things when on the brink, but driving them out for a mistake committed by a different management (no matter how egregious) isn't going to give them a chance to learn. But hey, if you guys want to have nobody around to sell you and your children guns, go right ahead.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:03:40 PM EDT
I did put my money where my mouth is. I emailed Remington and asked if they made any semi auto shot guns without the lock. I bought the Benelli and told them so.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:08:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Sig and HK could care less if all guns are made illegal here. They don't support RKBA and they are all too ready to submit to import restrictions on their weapons. Have they supported the NRA or GOA, or any other similar organization? Nope. So, are you going to boycott them too? They sell out everytime the BATF redefines import regulations without a single peep. They could at least make some effort to prevent such restrictions, but they don't. I suggest you start using your brain instead of making rash, unreasoned reactions to stimuli. The antis do that, are you one of them?
View Quote
No, I am not an anti and you can go to hell for suggesting that. I have used my brain. Where you get that Sig and HK have caved in to BATF is beyond me. Sig is very supportive of RKBA. They have a factory here and have contributed a lot of money to RKBA. I have news for you. SafTHammer is very much for things like mandatory trigger locks, as that is one of their major products. It is a lot easier to get out of the agreement than you suppose, but SafTHammer has no desire to do so since some of the provisions is great for their business. SafTHammer is no friend to gun owners. Putting Smith and Wesson out of business does not help the antis. In fact, it sends a clear message to them and gun makers that we as gun owners will not tolerate such crap. You did not see ANY other gun maker caving in and a lot of it had to do with the anger shown by gun owners.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:11:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: I did put my money where my mouth is. I emailed Remington and asked if they made any semi auto shot guns without the lock. I bought the Benelli and told them so.
View Quote
Why?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:29:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: No, I am not an anti and you can go to hell for suggesting that. I have used my brain. Where you get that Sig and HK have caved in to BATF is beyond me. Sig is very supportive of RKBA. They have a factory here and have contributed a lot of money to RKBA. I have news for you. SafTHammer is very much for things like mandatory trigger locks, as that is one of their major products. It is a lot easier to get out of the agreement than you suppose, but SafTHammer has no desire to do so since some of the provisions is great for their business. SafTHammer is no friend to gun owners. Putting Smith and Wesson out of business does not help the antis. In fact, it sends a clear message to them and gun makers that we as gun owners will not tolerate such crap. You did not see ANY other gun maker caving in and a lot of it had to do with the anger shown by gun owners.
View Quote
OOOOooootay [rolleyes] Sig and HK don't make revolvers, so you still haven't completely solved the problem chet. You've thought about as long as it takes to get your panties in a knot. That's also called an irrational knee-jerk reaction. If you were on the other side, you'd be right out there with Rosie calling gun owners criminals. If you would be so kind as to present quantifiable evidence that pushing out the new S&W would do ANYTHING to help our cause I would be much abliged. But, I'm done. I don't want to be blamed for the haert-attack death of some hypertense ar15.com member.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 6:33:35 PM EDT
I will continue to boycott S&W until they rescind their agreement with the bureacracy. If they fold, they fold. Someone will pick up the assets cheap, rescind the agreement, and start making blue steel revolvers again. waterdog
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 8:05:42 PM EDT
Hey guys You want to change the policies of S&W? Buy their stock. They are a publicly traded company SAFH.OB and are currently at $1.50 a share ( don't go into how risky cheap over the counter stocks please ) and it's projected one year target is $3.50 - $5.00 / share. Buy up their stock and VOTE as a share holder! Make the board do our bidding and make a few bucks in the process.
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 9:10:00 PM EDT
Seems to me the S&W agreement is in fact a contract with the government, partially dependent on 7 or 8 other manufacturers signing on, as well as considerations (like not getting sued) for complying. Now to me, that looks like the gov't hasn't met their side of the bargain, and probably gives S&W grounds to sue for breach of contract and get the whole thing nullified... if I were their lawyers, I'd be looking at that and leaning on the DOJ to just mutually rescind the whole thing... And gee, does the Springfield ILS count as a trigger lock? I can live with that... fewer accidents but can still be carried "safety off". Just my $.02
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 10:26:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pthfndr: Hey guys You want to change the policies of S&W? Buy their stock. They are a publicly traded company SAFH.OB and are currently at $1.50 a share ( don't go into how risky cheap over the counter stocks please ) and it's projected one year target is $3.50 - $5.00 / share. Buy up their stock and VOTE as a share holder! Make the board do our bidding and make a few bucks in the process.
View Quote
Tempting idea. How many shares are outstading? Sill, last time I bought stock at that price, all I got was a write off. We have alot of well heeled members here. For the the price of a couple of turkeys of ammo, you can control the future of U.S. firearms production. We could force them to make a Carbonlight 15 clone that actually works. What about it guys?
Link Posted: 3/7/2002 11:15:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: Sig and HK don't make revolvers, so you still haven't completely solved the problem chet.
View Quote
Buy a Taurus--they'll even give you a 1 year NRA membership when you do. They're not the POS guns they used to be, either. They make some downright pretty revolvers, too.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:15:07 AM EDT
S&W's decision was based solely on economics, economics that they thought would benefit them and put them in the forefront. It was nothing but a business decision for them. If it would have worked and they could have made money and started to show a profit do you think it would have taken more or less than 1 second before every manufacturer on this planet would have followed suit? The more pain they feel and the longer they feel it; until they public acknowledge the fact they fucked up big dog, the better off we will all be in the long run.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:18:38 AM EDT
Also if they would publicly admit that they made a mistake and it resulted in all the antis in Federal, State and Locale governments taking issue with it, I would spend more money on S&W products and may even be compelled to donate to a national defense fund for them.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 6:20:45 AM EDT
Ok guys I can understand why you can be angry with S&W but how many of you have ever run or owned a business? Yeah it sucks (the agreement) but the fact that they dont enforce it and are trying in whatever manner to get out of it says something...and that is they were just trying to save their ass from lawsuits, bankruptcy, and closure. S&W has never to my recolection has never been a barnstormer of bankroll ability so in order to stop lawsuits that could bankrupt them they agreed unitl another course of action could be taken. How many of you have had to layoff people?, maybe a couple? How about a whole company? So, is being pissed at them worth the firing of hundreds of talented people, the closure of one of the most prestigious long lasting gun makers, and the loss of more gun choices? Yeah, that'll teachem!! Here's a clue people, when it hits the bottom line any other gun companies would have done the same thing! I will buy any new S&W product because it is that money that they use to fight the current and fututure agreements/laws/law suits. And YOU are hypocritical if you buy ANY new ruger product, after all they are the arcitect (sp?) of the wonderfull mag ban that effects ALL gun companies and the majority of gun owners. God knows I love paying $100 for glock mags (used to be $25), $15 for AR mags(used to be $4) and so on and so forth. [:(!] Truth be known if there is ANY company that should be boycotted it is Ruger for the above reason. They actually HELPED/SUGGESTED to craft that measure, not just being a subject to it! But THEY for some reason don't deserve that after all they were just trying to "save themselves" and help maintain our "gun rights"...Yeah, they're just [0:)] Give me a friggin break and THINK. BrenLover
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 6:58:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ORIGINAL-Waterdog: I will continue to boycott S&W until they rescind their agreement with the bureacracy. If they fold, they fold. Someone will pick up the assets cheap, rescind the agreement, and start making blue steel revolvers again. waterdog
View Quote
Other than to say "phuckem" this accurately states my feelings. [X]
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 6:59:13 AM EDT
I recently bought a smith and wesson 357 magnum. They now have locks built into there guns.I will never never purchase another gun from them again. I think this is just stupid to put built in locks on firearms. If a person isn't responsible enough to keep any firearm they own in a safe secure place then they should'nt own one. I wanted a gun not a gun that takes a damn key. Personally I hope more people feel this way and do not buy from them then maybe other companies will not start doing this crap and just stick to making guns.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:51:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By illinois: I recently bought a smith and wesson 357 magnum. They now have locks built into there guns.I will never never purchase another gun from them again. I think this is just stupid to put built in locks on firearms. If a person isn't responsible enough to keep any firearm they own in a safe secure place then they should'nt own one. I wanted a gun not a gun that takes a damn key. Personally I hope more people feel this way and do not buy from them then maybe other companies will not start doing this crap and just stick to making guns.
View Quote
Better get used to the locks physically on the gun. Newer HK USPs have a key-type lock that is accessed thru the mag well. And of course Taraus. This is probably one of the fall-outs of the gun mfgr lawsuit.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 8:28:27 AM EDT
I still have 2 issues with S&W (1) They still need to figure out a creative way to get out of the Govt. agreement. (2) They are still going down the road of incorporating all the newfangled 'safety' devices (e.g. trigger lock) into their products. I don't want all that crap on my revolers. Revolvers have proven themselves to be an effective and safe product without these devices for more than 100 years. Once all manufacturers are forced to incorporate these devices you are one step closer to government mandated use of them, which reduces their effectiveness (you have to unlock) as a defensive weapon in a life threathening situation.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 8:42:04 AM EDT
"Better get used to the locks physically on the gun. Newer HK USPs have a key-type lock that is accessed thru the mag well. And of course Taraus. This is probably one of the fall-outs of the gun mfgr lawsuit." Oooh, Oooh! BoyCott them too! They're "giving in" and voluntarily at that! For those with guns that have built in locks and dont like them...JUST DONT LOCK IT THEN!! Like it or not they are a good thing for many people! It's like all these wierd warnings/saftey devices on products these days. They wouldn't be there if there weren't stupid people that needed them! BrenLover
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:23:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SorryOciffer: And YOU are hypocritical if you buy ANY new ruger product, after all they are the arcitect (sp?) of the wonderfull mag ban that effects ALL gun companies and the majority of gun owners. God knows I love paying $100 for glock mags (used to be $25), $15 for AR mags(used to be $4) and so on and so forth. [:(!] Truth be known if there is ANY company that should be boycotted it is Ruger for the above reason. They actually HELPED/SUGGESTED to craft that measure, not just being a subject to it! But THEY for some reason don't deserve that after all they were just trying to "save themselves" and help maintain our "gun rights"...Yeah, they're just [0:)] Give me a friggin break and THINK. BrenLover
View Quote
Yup! Search for my response to the pig Bill Ruger threads. Another who slept with the devil.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:28:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:32:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:42:58 AM EDT
Oh sure they are for RKBA as long as they aren't a party to arm twisting to sign contracts and are for "sensible and logical" additional restrictions like HI CAP MAG BANS! BoyCottem I tell ya!, If you go by your logic they should be just as guilty! BrenLover
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:48:29 AM EDT
Sorryociffer, do you really think that the stupid people will even use a built in gun lock?They are the people that shouldn't own a firearm because they are careless and irresponsible. There are ways to lock your guns up now and these stupid people do not use them. Can you really tell me that a built in gun lock will make a difference? The only people that will use them will be the people that were responsible in the first place that do not need a built in gun lock. I know that these companies have chose to put built in gun locks into there firearms to try to avoid lawsuits but as long as there is someone selling a quality gun without some type of built in lock they will have my business even if it costs a little more.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:58:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 3:12:26 PM EDT
Illi, No, I dont really expect them to use them, however in the litigious society we live in they are a form of self protection form lawsuits. The Makers can say "well we put the saftey on it, it's not our falt you didn't use it." It's a CYA move, ya know like when instructions for a hair drier remind you not to use it in the shower? Raf, You demonize a company for accepting an agreement that is shoved down their throat so they aren't sued into oblivion but companies that voluntarily cave in and add locks or push hi-cap mag bans are "ok" because they are "pro RKBA" Where is the line of no return? To me it seems quite hypocritical to me. BrenLover
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 3:21:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:01:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pthfndr: Hey guys You want to change the policies of S&W? Buy their stock. They are a publicly traded company SAFH.OB and are currently at $1.50 a share ( don't go into how risky cheap over the counter stocks please ) and it's projected one year target is $3.50 - $5.00 / share. Buy up their stock and VOTE as a share holder! Make the board do our bidding and make a few bucks in the process.
View Quote
Now there is the best idea yet! [beer] All I need is the $$$. At that price, we could do one heck of a "group purchase" [}:D] Tyler
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:21:59 PM EDT
Raf, Ruger can spend Mucho Dinero on RKBA because to the best of my knowledge they have NEVER had an un-profitable quarter in their history, S&W cannot say the same by any means. SOoooo, THAT is why they accepted the deal in order to stop lawsuits that could ruin them. Seems rather logical reasoning to me. I am a staunch supporter of RKBA to the max, I make Rush Limbaugh look like a moderate, if I owned the company and was in the same situation (be sued into closing down, lay-off hundreds, loss another famous gun-maker) I would have done the same unitl I could get out of it or get around it. I think the RKBA crowd is just using them as a scape goat because we are so pissed at the system as a whole. BrenLover
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:32:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:37:45 PM EDT
Who lead the charge for the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968? It was the American firearms industry. Why? Well, they were trying to stop competion with inexpensive foreign imports. Yes, Wichester, Remington, Savage et al supported gun legislation to protect their markets. In retrospect, we see that their actions were self-serving and ultimately defeatist. After all, GCA '68 was literally the nose of the camel. S&W entered into a similar pact with the devil. Was it to keep our streets safer? Was it to avoid the Clintonista's evil legal schemes? No, it was to sew up all sorts of neat federal, state and local contracts. They were protecting their turf. They wanted to trade a little freedom and liberty for guarenteed contracts. They got tired of having to compete with Glock, so they sought to shut Glock out of the market. So, will I boycott S&W? You bet! Do I boycott Ruger? You bet!
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 4:48:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 5:17:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2002 5:23:24 PM EDT by Padre_Loco]
Yes. I shoot AR's. I tend to favor Bushmaster and Armalite. As for Colt, Remington, Winchester etc. I really could care less. I'd rather buy foreign produced firearms than support the established American firearms industry that knocked over the first gun control domino in an effort to squelch the free market. I can't help but draw references to Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" in reference to the American arms producers. They do all of their political manouvering in order to get ahead, but all of the regulations, laws and rules they adopt eventually kill them. I'll hunt birds with a Beretta shotgun. I'll shoot AR's and Glocks. As for those people who would call me a "dumbass" or otherwise try to shame me into supporting a manufacturer: My boycott isn't killing them. They've killed themselves.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 5:31:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 5:55:32 PM EDT
I had given up S & W before the "agreement crap" because the quality had gone to hell and I had not seen any reversal in that area. Any one have any figures on sales immediately preceding the agreement? Just curious to see if majority of decline was due to agreement alone. Unfortunately, the lock situation is probably here to stay because all the "experts', aka politicians can't discern safety from safe handling. Childproof caps--isn't that what you give to the kids to open because the adults don't know how. 1st thing kids will try to do will be pick the locks. Hopefully management will quickly see that they've got some work to do in quality control as well as politicin.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 6:09:52 PM EDT
If you want to vent to the new owners of S&W go here [url]http://www.saf-t-hammer.com/corp_profile.htm[/url] to see the names of the head people, and then you can click the "contact us" tab at the top to see where to send. BTW, at this time firearms are NOT S&W's major source of income.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 6:33:41 PM EDT
Perhaps we should reevaluate who the dumbass is. How about HK, Sig, Beretta. Christ, man, Springfield and Glock are not the only other pistol makers. I suggest you read the entire Smith and Wesson agreement before you go defending them. If they had their way, we would not be able to own AR15 rifles. As I said, GO READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! The same goes for you, thewind. You people amaze me. No other gun maker sold out like Smith and Wesson. Some people slam Ruger, but they never sold out like S&W. Neither did Colt. Again I say, READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU DEFEND SMITH AND WESSON, dumbasses. This was a sellout to the max, they were telling dealers that if you want to sell their product, you could not sell AR15s or any other falsely labeled 'assault rifles'. You can defend them if you agree with the 'assault rifle' ban, otherwise, you don't have a clue.
View Quote
LARRYG, you and I may disagree 100% on NASCAR,[bd] but I agree 100% with you on this. Until they tell me otherwise, Shit and Worthless can go to hell. Pit
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top