-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Until that bill is defeated they are still accountable for their part in supporting it. Asking forgiveness isn't the same as it never happened, especially when you consider their lobbying group worked out a deal to exempt them in exchange for them not opposing it.
Whether they knew what the lobbying group was doing or not is irrelevant, when you delegate your authority to someone under you, you are responsible and accountable for their actions. They make a great product, but I won't support a company that doesn't support firearms owners and the FFLs that supply us.
And yet we still have extra holes in SW and Taurus.
SW brand is still alive. It is possible they were 100% in the dark about a company they dealt with on a daily basis but, I choose to believe they should be held responsible in some form.
I find it hard to believe everyone in the company had no clue what was going on. They saw a long term gain in screwing the little guy and it backfired.
For example Luxottica owns like 80% of the optical industry. When asked why they charge so much, the owner said; Because I can. Even if half the people on this forum never buy a SA firearm again, I doubt that will effect them over the next 30 years. Dont they import everything? What do they actually manufacture? How many first time buyers care? Short term they may feel a pinch but I dont think it will effect them much in the long run. I didnt plan on buying anything from them again anyway so me boycotting them really doesnt matter.
Perhaps you don't recall what happened: S&W sales plummeted 40% following their sellout to the Clintons. The company was sold to avoid a potential bankruptcy. Not exactly the kind of scenario any right-thinking business exec would care to emulate.
It's really hard for me to believe that the people running SA and RRA are clueless about that history lesson.
Hard to believe Smith wouldn't expect any backlash either. I would think most execs running a major cooperation would have a grain of common sense. Money has a way of clouding intelligence.
S&W was owned by Tomkins, PLC when they cut the deal with the Clintons. A British company. They actually thought they were buying goodwill with the American public when they cut that deal. Tomkins paid more than $100 million for S&W. They sold it for $15 million after the gun control debacle.
I guess they thought wrong. Im sure other companys over the years have took the wrong path and shut the doors. Perhaps Springfield took a gamble, pehaps not. But any company dropping cash should know where its going. I dont buy the innocent blind stupid plea. Most Judges will still fine you if you are doing 60 in a 35 and your excuse is "I didn't see a sign".
Wait...I thought I was in the 'Steals & Deals' section.
