Did one gun store ever comply with the agreement? Did one gun store stop selling hicap magazines or assault rifles because they stocked S&W products? Did one gun store start storing all their guns in safes overnight? Did one gun store implement the additional training that the agreement called for? I can't believe you guys are still crabbing about this two years later.
U.S. "Smith & Wesson seeks to regain its reputation"
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
None of those questions are relevant, craigz.
The issue is this; Smith and Wesson's "New, American Owwners" bought the company after carefull consideration of the agreement, what it is, what it means, what it can do. They could have purchased the company in such a way as to be shed of it. They chose to buy the company intact, agreement and all.
Since that time they have been carefully ignoring it. The strategy they employ to deal with it is to release misleading public statements and spend huge sums on advertising to woo back disgusted customers. They seem to feel that if it is ignored long enough it will go away. That may be the case in the long run, or it may not. I find that course of action repugnant and insulting. It speaks volumes of what they think of the intellect and moral fibre of their client base, and not kindly.
At the core of the disgust with the agreement lies fear of what sort of precedent it sets for the rest of industry. How much government control is acceptable when one looks at free enterprise in theses United States? The agreement is crafted in such a way as to completely change the gun industry and the availability of firearms in a negative manner. It will not be a minor inconvenience for us if some future administration subverts the law and forces Smith and Wesson to implement it. Given Smith and Wesson's current attitude, I highly doubt they would "go down fighting" such an action. They would capitulate, and the destruction of our rights would escalate.
The issue is this; Smith and Wesson's "New, American Owwners" bought the company after carefull consideration of the agreement, what it is, what it means, what it can do. They could have purchased the company in such a way as to be shed of it. They chose to buy the company intact, agreement and all.
Since that time they have been carefully ignoring it. The strategy they employ to deal with it is to release misleading public statements and spend huge sums on advertising to woo back disgusted customers. They seem to feel that if it is ignored long enough it will go away. That may be the case in the long run, or it may not. I find that course of action repugnant and insulting. It speaks volumes of what they think of the intellect and moral fibre of their client base, and not kindly.
At the core of the disgust with the agreement lies fear of what sort of precedent it sets for the rest of industry. How much government control is acceptable when one looks at free enterprise in theses United States? The agreement is crafted in such a way as to completely change the gun industry and the availability of firearms in a negative manner. It will not be a minor inconvenience for us if some future administration subverts the law and forces Smith and Wesson to implement it. Given Smith and Wesson's current attitude, I highly doubt they would "go down fighting" such an action. They would capitulate, and the destruction of our rights would escalate.
Silver Bullet
Member
ahadams
Thanks for replying. It seems to me that what you are proposing is a bombshell for the ongoing boycott debate. It doesn't say the boycott was wrong , but suggests that now or in the near future the boycott becomes unnecessary. What we need are experts (and from what you've said your expertise greatly exceeds mine on this legal point; I guess I'm the one who watched Perry Mason
) who can chime in on this to answer questions like 1) how certain is this scenario, and 2) how long must the government refrain from enforcing the Agreement before it becomes void.
A common refrain on these debates is "the agreement is dormant, not dead", and your argument suggests that refrain will become untrue. My question for people well versed in this, is "When ?"
Thanks for replying. It seems to me that what you are proposing is a bombshell for the ongoing boycott debate. It doesn't say the boycott was wrong , but suggests that now or in the near future the boycott becomes unnecessary. What we need are experts (and from what you've said your expertise greatly exceeds mine on this legal point; I guess I'm the one who watched Perry Mason
) who can chime in on this to answer questions like 1) how certain is this scenario, and 2) how long must the government refrain from enforcing the Agreement before it becomes void.A common refrain on these debates is "the agreement is dormant, not dead", and your argument suggests that refrain will become untrue. My question for people well versed in this, is "When ?"
- Status
