Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 'The Kimber Kiss-up' by L. Neil Smith from JPFO.org America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080605.htm

    L. Neil Smith lneil@netzero.com wrote:
    June 5th 2008 The Kimber Kiss-up By L. Neil Smith lneil@netzero.com For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.JPFO.org

    For those of us who make the transition from gun owner and shooter to Second Amendment activist, the most disillusioning phenomenon we have to face is that not everyone we might expect to be an ally in the fight for the right to own and carry weapons can actually be relied on.

    When I first became involved in this historical struggle, Smith & Wesson, that quintessentially American revolver manufacturer was actually owned by a British holding company that didn't give a rap about the Second Amendment, was much more concerned with the company's sales to police departments across the country, and was inclined to go along with any regulatory scheme politicians and bureaucrats came up with.

    Similarly, the late Bill Ruger, the head Sturm Ruger & Company, never seemed to understand the Second Amendment. Paternalist and aristocrat that he appeared to fancy himself, he actually volunteered advice to the government concerning what he believed ought to be legal (whatever his company manufactured) and what should be outlawed. We have Ruger mostly to thank for the ten-round limit that was imposed during the ill-conceived Clinton-Dole Ugly Gun and Adequate Magazine Ban.

    Some gun companies and their executives care only about the bottom line. Hired away from soft drink or underwear manufacturers, the men at the top don't really have any moral or sentimental attachment to the product itself. They don't love what they do. They might as well be manufacturing faucet washers. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that, as far as it goes -- I'm a big fan of capitalism, myself -- but other companies are like the historic makers of fine musical instruments -- violins and guitars. Money is important chiefly in that it keeps the company and its employees going. What really counts is the quality of their product and the satisfaction of their customers.

    Wildey J. Moore, inventor of magnum automatic pistols comes to mind. He actually ran for office in his home state as a libertarian and Second Amendment advocate. Ronnie Barrett stoutly refuses to sell his famous .50 caliber rifles to agencies of gun-banning governments, and he won't service the ones they already have. STI International won't sell their nifty 1911s to California police agencies because of the bizarre, insane microstamping scheme passed by that state's legislature.

    Regrettably, another famous maker of 1911s, Kimber Manufacturing, seems to have trouble separating the goodguys from the badguys. According to an article by Ken Hanson, Esq., circulated on the Web by the Buckeye Firearms Association, and appearing on U.S. Concealed Carry Magazine's website, Kimber has acquired a bad habit: kissing up disgustingly to the destroyers of individual liberty by creating weapons especially dedicated to various California police agencies. In Hanson's words, these guns were specifically "designed for a local government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own this same gun."

    Emphasis added.

    See: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5674

    Hanson urges his readers to "educate" Kimber with regard to what a terrible idea this is. It's exactly as if Jewish tailors in the 1930s had taken pride in making uniforms for the Nazi S.S. There is no moral distinction. The author suggests a number of actions that concerned gun owners might take. chiefly calling or writing to the company at 914-964-0771x324, or via US mail at Kimber, 2590 Hwy 35, Kalispell, MT 59901.

    Although Hanson wants you to warn Kimber and its dealers of a possible boycott of their products by shooters concerned with their rights, he suggests your communication remain "polite, professional yet firm". I would make no such suggestion. This is a major breach of an implicit moral bond between a gunmaker and its clients, it is the rankest, most repulsive kind of hypocrisy, and it must be dealt with no less promptly and harshly than I urged in my 2000 essay "S&W Must Die".

    See: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20000406.htm

    The worldwide boycott which that essay helped to start broke S&W and sent them plunging -- repeatedly -- into bankruptcy. (Much the same thing happened to K-Mart when they foolishly hired the slavering, hysterical anti-gunner Rosie O'Donnell as their spokeswoman.) It is a story of which no firearms manufacturer today can possibly still be ignorant.

    In short, we must ask shooters to kick the Kimber habit.

    I agree with Hanson about the need for gun owners to react to Kimber's suicidal stupidity, but I would suggest also dealing with the problem at the other end. Why not a written pledge, to be taken and signed by individual police officers, that they will never attempt to confiscate weapons from civilians, whether it's during disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or as a result of local, state, or federal legislation.

    If it's unconstitutional, it's automatically null and void.

    That pledge can be archived by an organization like JPFO, and openly displayed online, making it easier to see who the goodguys and the badguys are. We could probably even design and make a nice little embroidered patch -- it might say "BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCER" -- for the pledge-making police officers to sew on their uniforms. Until their superiors, veins standing out on their foreheads and little gobbets of spit blasting from their lips as they scream, order them to take it off.

    Of course that, in itself, will teach cops everywhere a valuable lesson, and even make them ask themselves an important question, "Why am I helping to destroy The Bill of Rights", and the Kimber Kiss-ups should ask themselves the same question.
    We could probably even design and make a nice little embroidered patch -- it might say "BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCER" -- for the pledge-making police officers to sew on their uniforms. Until their superiors, veins standing out on their foreheads and little gobbets of spit blasting from their lips as they scream, order them to take it off.

    Of course that, in itself, will teach cops everywhere a valuable lesson, and even make them ask themselves an important question, "Why am I helping to destroy The Bill of Rights", and the Kimber Kiss-ups should ask themselves the same question.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I think it is a little much to suggest a boycott, because Kimber makes a pistol for a certain LE department. Would things be better if they were carrying Glocks, H&Ks, or Berettas? I'm just not seeing a point to this action, it would be impossible to choke off a weapons supply to California police agencies by boycotts.

    Most if not all manufacturers have sold weapons to agencies of localities not friendly to our cause. At times they have made special modifications for those agencies. Perfect example, Glock and their New York trigger modules. Then you have H&K which deems many of their weapons unsuitable for civilian sales.



    So where do the boycotts stop? Better yet who is pure?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    As long as governments & agencies are the cause for most of the bulk sales of firearms, boycotts seem rather pointless. Firearms manufacturers, while it would be nice if they were behind us, they are widget makers & salesmen, nothing more. And if you continue to boycott, who will be here to make us our tools of choice? Who is truly worthy?
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Moreover it sounds like these sales were to City police agancies, not the actual entity (State of CA) that passed the stupid law. I would fully support a boycott of any sales to CA state agencies.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Well this same pistol is also available to any of us who want to purchase it. Seems kind of odd to be bashing a gun manufacturer who is selling firearms to those who want to use it. Seems we all have a problem with Pols passing laws that say we can't have this kind of gun because it is too scary. Now we apply the same type of argument to gun manufacturers????

    The gun was created by input from select special police forces in Cal but is available to anyone who wants to buy it. It is not Kimber's fault that stupid morons in Cal don't like the name on it. Boycott them, vote them out.

    Lets not forget not all LE are against us. Certainly Kimber is not against the 2A. Anyone who knows anything about firearms manufacturing knows that almost all guns we now have are a result of targeting the military and police contracts. That is good for gun owners in general as we benefit from the improvements.

    We already are getting hammered from all angles by the media and the anti's now all we can do is go after each other from the inside. Great!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •