In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Should we be mad?

niklasalniklasal Member Posts: 776 ✭✭✭✭
edited March 2002 in General Discussion
Here is a topic for you Rosie....Should we be mad at certain gunmakers, like Ruger and S&W for siding with anti-gunners? True, they helped put restrictions on things like hi-cap mags, but do you think maybe they "sacrificed a toe to save the entire foot?"What do you all think?-NIK
NIKLASAL@hotmail.com
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence where Ruger (either the man or the company) has "sided" with anti-gun people?I've heard accusations about old Bill Ruger expressing an opinion about the capacity of magazines, and know the company was only doing law enforcement sales of the Mini-14 high capacity clips prior to the '94 ban. But I still fail to see how one can conclude that this is "siding" with anti-gun people?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This isn't getting much play, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway. S&W has new ownership, so that's kind of a moot point. In my opinion the old ownership did go too far. As far as Ruger goes, there was no excuse for Bill Ruger's comment, "No honest man needs a magazine that holds more than ten rounds." That was plain stupid, and I bet a lot of people at Ruger feel the same way but won't say so in public.But despite my own opinion that both companies went too far, any for-profit corporation is in business to make money and has to operate within government guidelines to do that. The better ones will try to sell you a good product for the money (and I put both S&W and Ruger in that category) but the bottom line is making a profit. Otherwise, there is no company. If it looks like the government might go so far as shutting them down or limiting them to LEO only, then they have to do something. I would fault both companies for not being both creative and assertive in supporting meaures that actually reduce crime (which is the true concern of most people) versus just making public relations changes to the law (like the 1994 ban).In the early 90's, it sure looked like the Clinton administration and their friends in Congress were ready to pull the plug on the gun industry. S&W and Ruger both made calculated decisions to retreat to more defensible ground. Unfortunately, Ruger's dumb comment is going to hang out there when 2004 comes around and we try to sunset the 1994 bans. So I'm madder about that specific comment than about the tactical retreats.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Blade,"No honest man needs a magazine that holds more than ten rounds." --When and where did Ruger say this and what was the context? "I would fault both companies for not being both creative and assertive in supporting measures that actually reduce crime..."--Hey, they make guns for us law-abiding citizens! Isn't that a "measure" that "actually reduces crime"?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hunter280manhunter280man Member Posts: 705 ✭
    edited November -1
    God knows that Ruger would probably like to retract that statement! But with a certain part of your anatomy in a vise, self preservation takes over! I have to wonder just how far the Clinton admin would have gone if say Ruger or S&W wouldn't have gone forth and did what they did, you may not have S&W to kick around like we do. From my understanding, the liberals where going to make someone pay wether it was just or not! S&W had the most to lose, and in their eyes the easiest target since they specialise in hand guns. Take on one enemy at a time, and win! In S&W's case better a live victim than a casualty. I'm just a country boy, and maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, Lord knowes I've been wrong before, but just the same here is my .02 worth. Go ahead and blast me, I'm assuming the position.
    Though I was born to royalty, I was snatched at birth, so treat me as the noble I am!!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ruger said that to Tom Broken-Jaw on the NBC News. Here is the full story: http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-papabill.html Now, as far as making guns in and of itself reducing crime: yes, if law-abiding citizens have them it will help reduce crime. Neither S&W nor Ruger made that argument. Most gun companies will pretend (in public) that their products are mainly for hunting and target shooting, not self-defense. That's one of the reasons Marlin stopped making the Camp 9 carbine.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah, the craziest part is that the Camp carbines and the Minis are two of the least militarized-looking of their ilk. Supposedly, the wood stocks are more palatable to the anti-gunners, but apparently Ruger and Marlin didn't think so at the time.
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Submariner .Submariner . Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    MY GOD I DIDNT KNOW THAT ABOUT RUGER!WISH I HAD.I JUST BOUGHT A 10/22,VERY WELL COULD HAVE CHANGED MY MIND
    Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist E-MAIL WNUNLEY@USIT.NET
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.