Bravo have a voice grow some balls and let's get er done.
You can send a letter to anybody that's anybody in government - State Legislators, Lt Gov's, Gov's, Congressional Reps/Senators, The Great Usurper, etc., thanks to this effort by Ruger!
Insure your position known by those in charge at: http://www.ruger.com
I DID! Pax...
Bravo have a voice grow some balls and let's get er done.
I used this and have received responses from my Governor, and Congressman so far. Its encouraging to hear from them.
The graphic on their site says that 4.69 million letters have been sent to representatives.
Here's hoping it's getting someones attention!
$2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Seriously, who is John Galt?
Vires et honestas
That is unfortunate. About a million folks sending letters should be enough to get the politicians to take notice. Inflating the numbers just cuts into credibility.
Still, if anyone has not sent these letters, please go to ruger.com and join the groundswell.
Are they on the list and committed to not selling to government agencies that which citizens are not allowed? If not, then they're playing PR games.
"The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
"Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.
^ +1 This.
Imagine the backpedalling and consternation if all major firearms manufacturers (BTW: Private companies) refused to sell or service any firearms to police departments or other government entities (DHS, FBI, etc.) unless their firearms, magazines, and other equipment was also available and untouched by law for sale and possession to citizens (BTW: Also private entities!).
Hmmmmm. Aren't firearm manufacturers aware of their "base"?
Some are. (Those that have come out with refusals already.)
However, the majority of major manufacturers are very well aware of one thing: The bottom line. (I understand. They're businesses. The entire idea is to make money and remain solvent as a business. I get that.) These companies make so much money through major government purchases and contracts, that denying sales and service would be a major loss of revenue. (Not to mention possible litigation..."breach of contract" etc.)
I'm a little torn on the method that should be employed when it comes to pressuring these manufacturers to do what we, the general public, feel would be a legitimate tactic to combat infringement on our rights.
Do we boycott? This is an industry we all participate in. There are many companies who's products I enjoy using and would like to support. Do I pressure them into "bahaving" in the manner I would like by joining/organizing/calling for a boycott? I would like to see these companies prosper. How can I honestly desire to pressure a company to behave in a manner I want when it would force them to face financial loss by either 1) behaving in a manner I would like to see, or 2) not behaving in a manner I would like to see.
Both choices force companies I like to face a "non-choice". A boycott would force them to face a lose/lose scenario. That isn't really productive for any of us, the consumer or the manufacturer.
However, no matter how much it hurts, I know what side I will take when (if) push comes to shove: The choice that leads to freedom rather than government appeasement. Too bad for the companies I like, and who's products I enjoy. I wish it could be different, but when MY rights are involved....too bad/so sad.
The problem is that this tactic is most likely doomed from the get-go. It would entail convincing a majority of private citizens who also enjoy the products made by these manufacturers to make a pretty big sacrifice.
Look at Magpul: Can you honestly say, after observing the "feeding frenzy" on P-Mags, that you will be able to get a majority of people to stop buying them unless Magpul refuses to stop sales and service to the government that they have a binding contract with?
It's almost a crazy argument. I know, even though I hold a solid belief in a boycott, that if Magpul were to offer me some P-Mags......I'd probably buy some. I'd reason with myself (in justification): "What will only one person refusing to buy magazines do?" Nothing, other than me not having some magazines I like. How can I hypocritically ask others to refuse to buy items they desire when I, myself, would probably buy them anyway?
However, in all honesty, I would "join the bandwagon" if there were a solid effort already underway. It's an admission of weakness. Simply the case of not having the cajones to be the first one to jump. Maybe a little too revealing of my "wishy-washy" convictions, but I hardly think I'm the only one who would turn down buying a bunch of P-Mags at $12.99 apiece if the opportunity presented itself in order to be the only one "making a point".
If the whole country were doing so? No problem.
This is a tough subject. It kind of forces us to examine our convictions a little more closely. For some, such as myself, it gets a little stressful encountering things we don't really think about (or try to purposefully avoid). Conflicting priorities always cause indecision. In order to be honest with others, I have to first be honest with myself. The next step is self-improvement.
Who knows? If the current political situation gets worse, you might see me "finding my cajones" and stepping up to call for that boycott.
Until then: Anyone have some extra P-Mags?
Last edited by Superlite27; 03-16-2013 at 01:02 AM. Reason: corect mispellinges