Armalite is supporting NY by still selling AR rifles to police. DONE WITH ARMALITE!
- Thread starter ol' scratch
- Start date
- Status
Armalite can sell to whoever they want, I can also buy from whoever I want. I do support companies who stop sales to the government of NY and CA, but unless the big law enforcement suppliers join in, it will achieve little. I am more offended by their their sarcastic first email. that alone is enough not to buy from them.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Look, Craig, I'd like Armalite to do a specific thing: Join the movement of manufacturers and and suppliers who won't deal with law enforcement on a different fundamental level than they deal with other civilians.
To that end, I would not buy their products if they don't do what I want. It's really that simple. I don't have to buy their products. They don't have to do what I want.
Whether that's perfectly internally consistent across every purchase I ever made, or every issue I ever cared about, or any other wide-cast extensions of the theme is actually quite irrelevant.
This is a matter of import to me at the moment. I'd like ArmaLite's help. This is my way of asking for that help. They're free to do as they wish.
To that end, I would not buy their products if they don't do what I want. It's really that simple. I don't have to buy their products. They don't have to do what I want.
Whether that's perfectly internally consistent across every purchase I ever made, or every issue I ever cared about, or any other wide-cast extensions of the theme is actually quite irrelevant.
This is a matter of import to me at the moment. I'd like ArmaLite's help. This is my way of asking for that help. They're free to do as they wish.
Skylerbone
Member
Craig, let's make it personal. Would you leave Tennessee if your home State said owning any firearm was a crime and the courts upheld the decision? What say your company manufactured bombs and the year was 1940. Would you have sold them to a short man with a mustache? Furthermore, would you expect to continue those sales through 1945 unabated by those who hadn't been bombed yet?
Where were we on supporting NYC? Not born yet but participating in the battle with NRA/ILA contributions. Doesn't affect us? Ask Colorado residents how Bloomberg affects them via politics.
When it comes to feeding my family I can say that my work record stretches back to cutting grass and shoveling snow at age 8. Never been 2 weeks without a job since, never drawn an unemployment check and most certainly have changed careers.
To some of us, and we are all fallible, principle means correcting course the moment you realize your direction is wrong.
Where were we on supporting NYC? Not born yet but participating in the battle with NRA/ILA contributions. Doesn't affect us? Ask Colorado residents how Bloomberg affects them via politics.
When it comes to feeding my family I can say that my work record stretches back to cutting grass and shoveling snow at age 8. Never been 2 weeks without a job since, never drawn an unemployment check and most certainly have changed careers.
To some of us, and we are all fallible, principle means correcting course the moment you realize your direction is wrong.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Did you announce to the world, including all future employers, why you left your job in Ohio? Or did you keep that little tidbit secret for your future prosperity?
I left my lifelong home in Florida 6yrs ago because it was becoming an overcrowded blue state.
And my example was extreme? I guess it's only extreme when you disagree with it.
Really? You want Colt and FN to stop selling automatic weapons to the military because they law prevents them from selling to us? What about fighters and tanks??? See the hypocrisy here? Where does it end?
IMHO, if you have a lick of sense, you'll leave politics out of your business, or you'll be out of business. The rest is just juvenile posturing and idealistic silliness. I grew up with nothing, my wife grew up nothing, we are not materialistic or greedy people. Yet when I posed a hypothetical question about cancelling some of my contracts because I disagreed with the politics of those customers, I stood back. The response was about what I expected.
I'm not passing judgement on whether or not what they did was a good idea. I'm merely trying to point out that it's not as black & white as you guys like to think and not everybody wants to cut their own throat to make a political gesture.
you're completely confused here because fighters and tanks aren't protected by the 2A. It's not hypocritical at all.
no, clearly others are willing to sacrifice now to impose economic sanctions against companies that don't support our rights, and you think it's silly.
you can see this as picking your battles. but we are at war we're just not shooting yet. and the rest of us would rather work economic and political angles, even if they cost us our jobs, in hopes of avoiding having to shoot.
many of us make business decisions based on politics and are still in business.
MachIVshooter
Member
OK, let me put this into perspective for some.
I run an automotive repair shop. Suppose the US government passed a law that all cars sold to the public must be governed at 79 MPH, but police and government vehicles are exempt.
I can stand up and say "I refuse to sell parts to or service the vehicles of any government agency!". Everyone cheers, I've taken a noble stand, hooray for me. But I don't work on LE and government vehicles to begin with, so this stance can only help me by increasing my customer base.
But the shop 12 miles east of me has long worked on county vehicles, sheriff's vehicles and the local police vehicles; Those accounts comprise a significant portion of their revenue. If they take the same stance, it will be a serious economic loss to their business. They may have to let people go, even close their doors.
Are you starting to see the bigger picture? I seriously doubt very many NY LE are buying La Rue rifles, so there is likely no economic risk to them by taking this stance. Principled, commendable, but I suspect mostly grandstanding. Same with Barrett, Olympic and York Arms. Now, I don't know that Armalite has ever made much (or anything at all) selling to officers of NY LE, but if they did, then taking the same stance could really hurt them.
If anyone can prove to me that one of these companies refusing to sell to NY LE actually stands to lose any significant amount of sales over their stance, then we can revisit this argument. Until that time, though, I suggest you either back off of Armalite or stick to your guns and boycott all gunmakers who haven't refused NY LE sales. If you're gonna be principled, then be principled. Don't just jump on the boycott bandwagon to feel like you're sending a message, because if you refuse to buy Armalites but continue to buy Colts and other brands that still sell to NY LE, you're a raging hypocrite.
I run an automotive repair shop. Suppose the US government passed a law that all cars sold to the public must be governed at 79 MPH, but police and government vehicles are exempt.
I can stand up and say "I refuse to sell parts to or service the vehicles of any government agency!". Everyone cheers, I've taken a noble stand, hooray for me. But I don't work on LE and government vehicles to begin with, so this stance can only help me by increasing my customer base.
But the shop 12 miles east of me has long worked on county vehicles, sheriff's vehicles and the local police vehicles; Those accounts comprise a significant portion of their revenue. If they take the same stance, it will be a serious economic loss to their business. They may have to let people go, even close their doors.
Are you starting to see the bigger picture? I seriously doubt very many NY LE are buying La Rue rifles, so there is likely no economic risk to them by taking this stance. Principled, commendable, but I suspect mostly grandstanding. Same with Barrett, Olympic and York Arms. Now, I don't know that Armalite has ever made much (or anything at all) selling to officers of NY LE, but if they did, then taking the same stance could really hurt them.
If anyone can prove to me that one of these companies refusing to sell to NY LE actually stands to lose any significant amount of sales over their stance, then we can revisit this argument. Until that time, though, I suggest you either back off of Armalite or stick to your guns and boycott all gunmakers who haven't refused NY LE sales. If you're gonna be principled, then be principled. Don't just jump on the boycott bandwagon to feel like you're sending a message, because if you refuse to buy Armalites but continue to buy Colts and other brands that still sell to NY LE, you're a raging hypocrite.
mcdonl
Member
machivshooter, I suspect that if Armalite lost their private market sales they would feel significant pain. We buy more guns, more often than LE does.
murphys_law
Member
With that behind said people are always free to make their own decisions on who to buy from based on any factor they want. That is why this is AMERICA. The business makes the decisions, whichever way that may be and they live with the consequences. THAT is the risk you take running a business. Period
Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk 2
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Did you not read what I quoted???
Sacrifice what, exactly? Because I don't think we're talking about sacrificing the same thing. If we were, you guys wouldn't be so flippant about it. Are you saying you would sacrifice, say 20% of the business you killed yourself building for 10-15yrs to make a political statement? 50%??? Or would it be smarter to donate that money to the NRA-ILA, buy guns, ammo, components and hunt the world?
Taliv, I know you are a moderator but I would appreciate it if you modified your tone with me because several statements you've made are being taken as personal insults. If you want this to stay civil, please make the appropriate adjustments. Your assumptions are incorrect and I won't stand for incorrect character judgements from anyone.
And if you're smart you leave the politics out of your business so you can stay in business. Minimize risk. Period.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Quoted for truth. All questions we should know the answers to before we start the witch hunt. If we do not, we're no better than they are. I just think the companies that GIVE money to anti-gun entities are more evil than those who TAKE money FROM them.
I really don't see the source for all this hostility. Here's the way it looks to me:
I guess the point I don't understand is this: If I'm willing to pay more money to buy a Barrett .338 and forego buying an Armalite .338 (and the Armalite shoots great, by the way), then why does anyone care?
If I encourage others to do the same, why is this so offensive to some?
- Some states and municipalities are outlawing classes of firearms for everyone but government employees.
- These tools are essential defensive tools. For cops as well as for other civilians.
- If police departments, who have employees who are only trained and competent on one handgun type and the AR were suddenly denied access to these essential defensive tools, they'd damn near revolt.
- As a result, the rules in these states for everyone would likely change.
- Some companies see this, and are willing to forego some economic benefit in order to do their part in this cause. Some other companies are jumping on the bandwagon as it's free PR with no real downside.
- Some of us see this and will choose to reward those companies for standing up for the second amendment.
- Some of us will pay more to send our money to these companies than an equivalent product might cost from another company not willing to make this level of commitment. For me, I'm probably willing to pay 50% more out of principle before I start to really think about it.
- All of this is terribly upsetting to some folks.
I guess the point I don't understand is this: If I'm willing to pay more money to buy a Barrett .338 and forego buying an Armalite .338 (and the Armalite shoots great, by the way), then why does anyone care?
If I encourage others to do the same, why is this so offensive to some?
And it is actually quite legal for civilians to purchase most models of fighters and tanks that come to market, aside from ones that are specifically prohibited by law (F-22 Raptor, M1 Abrams). For example, there are M60 tanks and at least one F-16A fighter in private hands.
In fact, the government intentionally destroyed most F-14s after their retirement from the fleet (aside from ones earmarked for museums) to prevent the civilian sale of airframes and components, as it was feared that they would find their way to Iran (the only other operator of the F-14).
Skylerbone
Member
Taking a rigid stance is nothing like what liberals do. Taking a stance requires a spine. Your stance requires no action and expects no consequences which begs the question. I took a stance when I discontinued contributions to United Way. I sent a letter informing them that the director of a charity ought not be making a salary in the multi-million dollar range. I explained it belittled my paltry contribution as well as sending the wrong message about true charity. If you don't live it, don't preach it.
As far as business savvy, ignoring future consequences to feed mouths now in hopes of avoiding personal sacrifice is beyond short-sighted particularly in regards to firearm manufacturers. Every business starts with a plan to first offer what is needed at a price that is competitive. It means knowing your clientele. It means no blood diamonds for Helzberg Jewelers and no animal testing for Cover Girl because customers deem it so. Is it more expensive? Not compared with bankruptcy.
As far as business savvy, ignoring future consequences to feed mouths now in hopes of avoiding personal sacrifice is beyond short-sighted particularly in regards to firearm manufacturers. Every business starts with a plan to first offer what is needed at a price that is competitive. It means knowing your clientele. It means no blood diamonds for Helzberg Jewelers and no animal testing for Cover Girl because customers deem it so. Is it more expensive? Not compared with bankruptcy.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
You guys sure love to assume crap that isn't true. I didn't say I didn't take a stand. I drive an hour every time I go shopping to avoid going to Walmart. I just don't sacrifice my business to make a political statement. There are other ways and I utilize them. Declining business hurts me more than them. I work smarter, what you suggest is beyond stupid.
The record speaks for itself, business and profit has increased 400% over the last two years. Why? Because I don't make stupid decisions like sacrificing business to make a dumb political statement. I'd rather take their money and spend it on guns, ammo, components, hunting and the NRA than leave it on the table for potential enemies. This should be obvious. I'm in a better position to FIGHT them with their own money than the man who "stands on principle" by shooting himself in the foot. Which is really the more wise position? Think, it ain't hard.
I posed this question to the man in charge and he said... "I would take their money and and use it against them. Buy more guns and ammo!"
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Battles are fought with the extremists but the war will be won somewhere in the middle. What strikes me as the biggest issue we face is not the actions of people like Feinstein and Schumer but the ignorant masses that make their work possible. The anti's really have no clue who we are, what we do or what we stand for. They operate on emotions and in almost total ignorance. Their knowledge of who they are fighting and what they are trying to ban based solely on generalizations, stereotypes and lies. They have lots of handy labels to apply to us but few if any of them are accurate. I just think our efforts would be better spent educating the undecided and battling our foes than destroying our friends.
We also should not hold others to standards we're unable to live with. Personally, I think the enemy's money is in a better place in my bank account than theirs but I'm weird like that.
We also should not hold others to standards we're unable to live with. Personally, I think the enemy's money is in a better place in my bank account than theirs but I'm weird like that.
NWcityguy2
Member
Craig, thanks for keeping this conversation at the top of the front page, it really helps get the message out. You don't understand why we are doing this but after reading your posts that really isn't a surprise. Asking taliv to modify his tone while you say in the same thread...
...says a lot. (It says you are way too emotional about this)
If you don't want to stand on this principle, choose some others to stand on. I doubt you'll be subjected to the same treatment you are giving us.
...says a lot. (It says you are way too emotional about this)
If you don't want to stand on this principle, choose some others to stand on. I doubt you'll be subjected to the same treatment you are giving us.
cal30_sniper
Member
Let's get one thing straight right from the start: The New York ban threatens the liberties of every single citizen of the United States of America. NY will be a test bed for other states and the federal government to introduce future laws in other states or on a national level. If the New York gun ban is a success, others states, and eventually the federal government, will follow the same route. If the New York ban goes off like a crap bomb with mass civil disobedience, rioting, demonstrations, and critical law enforcement agencies not being able to buy the equipment they need to perform their jobs effectively because manufacturers refuse to sell it to them, then not only will the law be repealed in New York, but it will have very little chance of being duplicated elsewhere.
We're not talking about companies going out of business, and children starving, because a firearms manufacture refused to sell to the law enforcement agencies of a SINGLE state out of 50. Even if Armalite said they weren't going to sell to New York, what would they lose? Even for a populous state as NY, they might lose 10% of their profits from law enforcement sales. That would be assuming that NY buys 5 times the number of law enforcement weapons as your average state (1/50 = 2%). Now, how much money do you think they would make in civilian sales when people started buying ARs instead of Colts, because Colt refused to boycott New York LE agencies? Then Colt loses business on the civilian side and either has to raise prices or follow AR's lead. Either way, New York State gets hurt. If Colt follows AR's lead, then New York law enforcement agencies might not be able to buy the rifles they need at all. At that point, something has to be done, so the law is repealed, and freedom wins everywhere.
An idealistic line of reasoning perhaps, but an elephant can only be eaten one bite at a time, and you've got to start somewhere. If you're too blind to see that process, then you really need to revisit American history of civil disobedience and free market economy.
Principles are principles because you hold to them when times get rough. If you're not willing to do so, then it's not a principle. You claim you're willing to let principles go to avoid difficulty and to make sure there's food in your belly and everyone is happy. I say you don't have principles at all then. It's people like that that make the transition from republic to totalitarianism so easy. There's an old line that holds very true with the sentiment you've been presenting here:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Are you a comedian? I'm one of few in this discussion taking the emotion out of it. You're obviously not actually reading my posts, only finding little snippets to argue about. Since reading comprehension is a lost art, I'll not bother any further because you clearly aren't getting the message.
Like all the other big city gun bans???
I'd say I'm smarter at choosing my battles than you are. I'd also say that those are fighting words from an internet tough guy who obviously can't read.
I really don't know if it's my inability to express my thoughts or your inability to comprehend them, or both but we are having an obvious communication breakdown here.
Like I said before, among all the other hard questions no one bothered to answer, who's in the best position to fight the good fight, the guy who uses the enemy's money against them or the guy in the unemployment line who did something stupid to "stand on principle"? Who REALLY stands on their principles, the who puts politics above his family's well-being or the guy who takes care of his immediate responsibilities first and foremost? Again, these "principles" are real easy when you have nothing to lose. It ain't your business we're talking about.
You can pound sand on that note. I've spent more money on books on liberty and history in the last five years than you probably have your whole life. I ordered nine books on history, liberty and philosophy yesterday.
Last edited:
cal30_sniper
Member
CraigC,
You also might want to do a little extracurricular reading about a pair of men named Oskar Schindler and John Rabe. IMO, both are prime examples of men that learned how to put personal principles ahead of capital gain. A bit higher stakes than we are talking about here, but it just goes to show that some things are more important than making money. I'd start with things like principle, honor, integrity, and morality, but I'm sure there are more that could be added to the list.
Some things are worth dying for. Even more things are worth going hungry for. I can think of a whole lot of things that are worth giving up money for, and the defense of liberty falls under all three categories.
You also might want to do a little extracurricular reading about a pair of men named Oskar Schindler and John Rabe. IMO, both are prime examples of men that learned how to put personal principles ahead of capital gain. A bit higher stakes than we are talking about here, but it just goes to show that some things are more important than making money. I'd start with things like principle, honor, integrity, and morality, but I'm sure there are more that could be added to the list.
Some things are worth dying for. Even more things are worth going hungry for. I can think of a whole lot of things that are worth giving up money for, and the defense of liberty falls under all three categories.
cal30_sniper
Member
I actually read every single post in this thread. I find your arguments emotionally charged and spineless. If you can't see the importance of what some manufacturers are doing to stop the NY weapons ban, and the importance of what we as the consumer are doing to help them, then maybe you should go back to penny pinching and putting your profits a little higher in the black.
To take it to an extreme like you've been so fond of doing, all that extra money you're making by selling out on principle isn't going to be worth a hill of beans when the government comes to take it from you and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
You will never find anyone who agrees with that sentiment more than I. Do you really think that gutting my business will hurt them? Or will it hurt me? Do you really think it's wiser to gut my business, live on a bare minimum and suffer for absolutely no reason? Is that really the path to victory? It's really tough to fight an expensive battle when you're broke. Spineless? I don't think so. I've been called a lot of things but never that. More cheap talk from an internet tough guy.
You guys must only work for companies who sell to customers you approve of then? You must also only employ domestic personnel and only work with goods made in the US. No? Typing on a keyboard made in China or Taiwan? Sell goods to whoever can pay for them? The Commander in Chief is an anti-gun socialist that wants to disarm and enslave us all. I guess all the military and federal law enforcement personnel who have not left their posts are also "spineless"???
Yeah dude, I give regularly to the NRA-ILA, have been a regular member for over 20yrs, signed up all the family members and friends I could, participate regularly on the NRA and other pro-freedom webpages, write my congresscritters and make an ass out of myself on forums like this but I'm a sellout because I don't pollute my business with politics. Yep, that's it. Feels like I'm arguing with idealistic juveniles that are all balls and no brains.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Unless, of course, you're in a politically charged and affected business and many of your customers ask you do do something (yes, to make a sacrifice) which makes a statement.
Then, NOT engaging in politics is harmful to your business and the opposite of minimizing risk.
There is no way to simply stay neutral and carry on with no recriminations. Other firms have set the bar. ArmaLite can join that movement, or not. Their choice, free country.
Either way, their actions will have some consequences.
They don't have to like it. YOU don't have to like it. It just is how it is.
cal30_sniper
Member
Like all the other big city gun bans???
The New York ban is not a "big city ban." It is a statewide ban imposed by big city politics, in a state that has a large, rural, gun-friendly population outside of that "big city." That is why its stands a good chance of failing. Hopefully some of those books you've been buying dealt with geography. You might want to look up the difference between a state and a city.
I'm going to go with the latter, since I read and quoted your direct claim that principles were worth giving up to avoid going hungry. If you didn't mean it, then you shouldn't have said it. If you did mean it, you're wrong. The fact that everyone else is seeing the same thing is also helping my case here.
It is my liberty we are talking about here, which is personally much more important to me than my business or food in my belly.
It appears that you've now shifted your argument to the fact that its better to take the enemy's money and use it for good than to not take it in the first place. I'm sorry, but I've seen no announcement where Armalite said they were taking all profits from NY LEO sales and donating them to the NRA. That would be wonderful, and I would fully support that route. However, all I HAVE seen is Larue, Olympic, etc, come out and say they would not sell to NY. If Armalite is not willing to do the same, I reserve the right to not only spend my money elsewhere, but also to spread the word to as many gun owners as possible to do the same. If Armalite then goes out of business, then perhaps the next company to take their place won't be so weak to stand up for the rights of their primary customers.
Not to mention that Armalite is very unlikely to go out of business because they fail to sell to NY LEOs. They very well may lose a lot of business if they continue to alienate their public customers with rude emails and wishy-washy political statements that fail to make a stand for what is right.
Oh my, we've got a regular Herodotus here...
Skylerbone
Member
Answer the question, Craig. I'm positive you're not the only business owner on this forum and we're not discussing your business. What would you do if they banned firearms in your State? Would you pull up stakes and move, forcing your children to starve? Grin and bear it till you could retire in Colora...er Texas?
So which parts of our Constitution do you in the middle see as too extreme? Which rights are you ready to compromise on in the interest of peace through appeasement? Was my example of Hitler really too extreme now?
Here's how I'm weird, I'd sooner starve my enemy than sell him the sustenance that feeds his growing intolerance. I prefer removing his teeth, that he can no longer bite as I turn my back.
Alas, we assumed from the mountain of evidence you offered against those who take a stand that you were actually against such policy, now this. You view your stand against Walmart as worthy, though it no doubt takes gas money and time away from your children (and from the children of Walmart employees) but ours is a less noble cause being based on principle?
Congratulations on your success in business, clearly ethics, logic and reasoning play no small part in its daily affairs. I am "beyond stupid" in the ways of commerce which is why I simply chose a career and saved for rainy days.
So which parts of our Constitution do you in the middle see as too extreme? Which rights are you ready to compromise on in the interest of peace through appeasement? Was my example of Hitler really too extreme now?
Here's how I'm weird, I'd sooner starve my enemy than sell him the sustenance that feeds his growing intolerance. I prefer removing his teeth, that he can no longer bite as I turn my back.
Alas, we assumed from the mountain of evidence you offered against those who take a stand that you were actually against such policy, now this. You view your stand against Walmart as worthy, though it no doubt takes gas money and time away from your children (and from the children of Walmart employees) but ours is a less noble cause being based on principle?
Congratulations on your success in business, clearly ethics, logic and reasoning play no small part in its daily affairs. I am "beyond stupid" in the ways of commerce which is why I simply chose a career and saved for rainy days.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked