• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Guns & Ammo blown away by Silver Eagle Group

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Bulldog1967 wrote:
I'm more "blown away" by Silver Eagle's donations to anti-gunners.

No thanks, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

hsmith wrote:
Zing! :lol:
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

bcr229 wrote:
Over $200,000 tosome of the mostanti-RKBA politicians VA has seenduring the last few years. The top group is corporate contributions.

MVM Inc

$41,000 Connolly for Fairfax County Board Chair - Gerald
$35,000 Potts for Senate - Russell
$20,000 Potts for Governor - Russ
$20,000 Beyer for Governor - Don
$16,000 Howell for Senate - Janet
$15,000 Citizens for Better Transportation
$8,000 Del Toro for Delegate - Carlos
$6,500 Connolly for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors - Gerald
$2,500 Virginians for Warner
$1,500 Bulova for Fairfax County Supervisor - Sharon
$1,500 Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce
$1,400 Democratic Party - Commonwealth Victory Fund
$1,150 Democratic Party - Virginia
$1,000 New Leadership Va Fund
$1,000 Plum for Delegate - Kenneth
$1,000 Mathieson for Delegate - Robert
$1,000 Williams for District of Columbia Mayor - Anthony
$1,000 Dix for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors - Bob
$1,000 Hanley for Fairfax County Board Chair - Kate
$500 Republican Party - Virginia Joint Republican Caucus
$500 DuBois for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors - Joan
$500 Mendelsohn for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors - Stuart
$500 McConnell for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors - Elaine
$500 Belter for Senate - Catherine
$500 Rollison for Delegate - John
$500 Scott for Delegate - James
$250 Warner for Governor - Mark

Dario O Marquez, Jr

$35,000 Moran for Governor - Brian
$5,000 Bulova for Fairfax County Board Chair - Sharon
$2,000 Martinez for Delegate - Marty
$1,500 Scott for Delegate - James
$1,000 Beyer for Governor - Don
$500 O'Brien for Delegate - James
$500 Del Toro for Delegate - Carlos
$500 Plum for Delegate - Kenneth
$250 Bleicher for Delegate - Samuel

ETA the federal campaigns:

MARQUEZ, DARIO
OAKTON,VA 22124MVM INC/PRESIDENT AND CEO

6/10/03 $2,000 Hanley, Kate (D)
6/9/08 $500 Democratic Party of Virginia (D)
12/30/03 $-1,140 Hanley, Kate (D)
11/8/07 $500 Becerra, Xavier (D)
1/31/08 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
4/21/93 $1,000 Torres, Esteban E (D)
5/29/93 $1,000 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)
5/3/02 $300 Morella, Connie (R)
6/25/94 $200 Pastor, Ed (D)
1/28/08 $2,300 Connolly, Gerry (D)
7/29/08 $1,200 Connolly, Gerry (D)
7/31/08 $1,100 Connolly, Gerry (D)
6/30/07 $1,000 Obama, Barack (D)
3/27/96 $1,000 Davis, Thomas M III (R)
3/27/96 $1,000 Davis, Thomas M III (R)
9/26/97 $750 Sanchez, Loretta (D)
9/19/97 $250 Sanchez, Loretta (D)
9/30/02 $5,000 Federal Victory Fund (R)
8/9/05 $5,000 Federal Victory Fund (R)
10/28/94 $1,000 Davis, Tom (R)

MARQUEZ, KAREN
OAKTON,VA 22124HOUSEWIFE

5/29/93 $1,000 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)
5/25/94 $1,000 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)
4/21/93 $1,000 Torres, Esteban E (D)
10/28/94 $1,000 Davis, Tom (R)
12/31/97 $500 Sanchez, Loretta (D)
5/9/02 $1,000 Federal Victory Fund (R)

MARQUEZ, KEVIN
MC LEAN,VA 22102MVM, INC./SECURITY SERVICES

6/9/08 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
1/28/08 $2,300 Connolly, Gerry (D)
7/31/08 $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D

MARQUEZ, NATALIE
HERNDON,VA 20171MVM/SECURITY SERVICES

2/11/08 $2,300 Connolly, Gerry (D)

MARQUEZ, SCOTT
HERNDON,VA 20171MVM, INC./SECURITY SERVICES

1/28/08 $2,300 Connolly, Gerry (D)
7/31/08 $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D)
5/12/08 $400 Clinton, Hillary (D)

MARQUEZ, STEPHEN
FAYETTEVILLE,NC 28303MVM/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

7/31/08 $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D)

MARQUEZ, DAMON
ARLINGTON,VA 22204MVM INC

10/6/96 $300 Davis, Thomas M III (R)

MARQUEZ, DAWN MARIE
CHANTILLY,VA 20152MVM/SECURITY SERVICES

1/28/08 $2,300 Connolly, Gerry (D)

CEBRIAN, MARGARITA
STAFFORD,VA 22556MVM/EXEC ASSISTANT

10/7/08 $500 Connolly, Gerry (D)

MIDDLETON, WHITNEY
WALDORF,MD 20601MVM, INC- DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

10/30/08 $250 Obama, Barack (D)

NAZARIO, NELSON JR
FALLS CHURCH,VA 22042MVM INC

5/29/93 $500 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)

OLIVER, LYNN C
STERLING,VA 20165MVM INC

5/29/93 $1,000 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)

OTERO, RICHARD J
ANNAPLIS,MD 21403 MVM INC

5/29/93 $500 Ortiz, Solomon P (D)

Source for the federal campaign data: http://www.opensecrets.org
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

The website for SEG is horrible as well. If you're gonna use flash on your site, at least put some html somewhere in there with your address and telephone number so it will display on mobile devices.
 

Chuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
125
Location
Sterling, Virginia, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.
 

bcr229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
60
Location
Inwood, West Virginia, USA
imported post

Chuckles wrote:
AbNo wrote:
If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.

None in mypersonal collectionor my inventory. Ditto Cooper Arms and HS Precision.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
imported post

ed wrote:
Chuckles wrote:
I don't care if the Marquez family donated to or voted Democrats so long as they are not admittedly against our 2A rights.
+1
I would argue that today's Democrats are largely anti-gun and are against our 2A rights.

It would depend on who they donated to for me to call for an all out boycott. That said I tend to stay away from wal-mart, pro-union companies, and people who donate to political groups like the Democrats. Do I always? No, but I don't go around calling for boycotts either.
 

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

Chuckles wrote:
AbNo wrote:
If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.

I don't have any in my collection either. I thought the company that owned S&W at the time of the sellout sold S&W. Now that it's owned by a different company, should the "boycott" stay in effect?

Say for example, SEG is sold to someone who doesn't support a gun grabber. Will you still avoid it?
 

cREbralFIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
378
Location
, ,
imported post

HBA has a history of being rude on other forums...m4carbine.net or AR15.com come to mind. (Assuming my memory is correct and this is the same person).

When HBA, or someone like him/her, asked "Why aren't you coming to our range?"...people gave honest responses. This guy (if it was the same person...could be someone else) responded with rudeness instead of "OK, I'll take that up with the manager."

(If HBA was not that person, then someone at that range was responding badly on the forums).



***This thread's context only****
HBA's responses HERE have not put SEG in a good light.

What HBA doesn't seem to understand is that WE are their CUSTOMERS. Yes, I know, but it it's true! Pissing off your customer base means...they will go elsewhere. I CHOOSE to go to the NRA range and pay their fees because $25 per hour at HBA's range is too much.

Regarding the poltics of donations, I have yet to independently verify the info posted here. Frankly, I see no reason to change indoor ranges given the prices involved.
 

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

No S&W in my collection either. Frankly, i don't even like any of their newer guns. Old revolvers, maybe, but nothing recent.Organizationslike SEG are much more evil than Brady Bunch or MMM, they are like trojan horses. I say @#$% them. Their stance is clear. They didn't just vote for an anti a time or two - that could've been explained by other issues. They are clearly very politically active and they supported virtually every anti-gunner on the ballot with their money. Now they are trying to promote themselves so we can bring them more money to donate to people who will use it agaisnt us. Hell NO! They can ask the Messiah himself to come shoot there along with Eric Holder and Rham Emanuael - because none of us will.

And about the line in the sand. Yes, when i go shopping for non gun-related stuff, i don't judge the place by who they donate to. They aren't in the gun business, for all i know they could not care about guns either way (which is often the case) and support these polititians for other issues. Majority of the people don't think about guns when they vote like we do. Fine by me. But when a gun-related business does it, they know what's it about. They can't claim ignorance. They do it on purpose. I say boycotte and boycotte loud. Let everyone know. Drive the place out of business. I surely won't go there and if anyone asks me about them, i'll inform this person about their donations. Everyone will decide for themselves, but this information should be availiable.
 

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

cREbralFIX wrote:
HBA has a history of being rude on other forums...m4carbine.net or AR15.com come to mind. (Assuming my memory is correct and this is the same person).

What HBA doesn't seem to understand is that WE are their CUSTOMERS. Yes, I know, but it it's true! Pissing off your customer base means...they will go elsewhere. I CHOOSE to go to the NRA range and pay their fees because $25 per hour at HBA's range is too much.


When HBA, or someone like him/her, asked "Why aren't you coming to our range?"...people gave honest responses. This guy (if it was the same person...could be someone else) responded with rudeness instead of "OK, I'll take that up with the manager."

(If HBA was not that person, then someone at that range was responding badly on the forums).

HBA, whoever he is, has his tongue so deep up SEG management's rectum that he's gotta be rude. I mean wouldn't you if you were in his shoes? :lol:Feel sorry for a guy!

P.S. Sorry for being so graphic, but it's so clear what he's doing here that i just couldn't help it!
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

eyesopened wrote:
Chuckles wrote:
AbNo wrote:
If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.

I don't have any in my collection either. I thought the company that owned S&W at the time of the sellout sold S&W. Now that it's owned by a different company, should the "boycott" stay in effect?

Say for example, SEG is sold to someone who doesn't support a gun grabber. Will you still avoid it?
My only S&W was made before the company that made the agreement with Clinton bought S&W. Mine was made before S&Ws started getting 2-piece barrels, MIM parts, and eventually selling a lock with a gun attached to it. Seeing that an internal lock is an invention of the antigunners, I say no thanks. I'll stick with my pre-1990s S&Ws. Only good thing is I hear S&W had good customer service so at least if I ever need it (and I can't have a gunsmith repair it) they'll still cover older revolvers.
 

ChinChin

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
imported post

HBA wrote:
Horrible people. They sound despicable.

What's that?

There are two sides to every story?

Uh. Not here.

Pretty fishy.

There are in-fact two sides to every story. please pass along to the owners that we await a public response (i.e their side of the story) to the comments being passed around pertaining to political contributions to documented anti 2nd amendment politicians.

While some have already written off SEG, others (myself included) are holding off on passing judgment until something official is released. Until that time and depending on the release, it's business revenue not going into their pockets.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

eyesopened wrote:
I don't have any in my collection either. I thought the company that owned S&W at the time of the sellout sold S&W. Now that it's owned by a different company, should the "boycott" stay in effect?

Say for example, SEG is sold to someone who doesn't support a gun grabber. Will you still avoid it?

The issue is that the company that bought S&W has just quietly taken over, and has never repudiated the agreements S&W made.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
imported post

Tess wrote:
The issue is that the company that bought S&W has just quietly taken over, and has never repudiated the agreements S&W made.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Wesson
Agreement of 2000 In March 2000, Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration in order to avoid lawsuits.[2][/sup] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns, cutting into their market share. [3][/sup][4][/sup] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), publicly renounced the agreement which was received positively by the firearms community.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
imported post

Now they just need to quit with the internal locks and the cost cutting measures (while their prices still increase btw) then I'd consider a new one.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:
Tess wrote:
The issue is that the company that bought S&W has just quietly taken over, and has never repudiated the agreements S&W made.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Wesson
Agreement of 2000 In March 2000, Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration in order to avoid lawsuits.[2] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns, cutting into their market share. [3][4] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), publicly renounced the agreement which was received positively by the firearms community.
Interesting that the statement you highlight in red is not sourced, and so much else is. I'm willing to do more research, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention, but I'm not willing to accept wikipedia as the final authority.

Thanks for bringing it up. I recall Philip Van Cleave mentioning last year that the agreement was still in force. Do you have any idea when the renunciation might have been?
 

Chuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
125
Location
Sterling, Virginia, USA
imported post

I last emailed VCDL for a clarification on S&W's agreement with Clinton Administration prior to purchasing a Ruger GP-100, since a salesman was recommending the S&W 686 instead, and this is the reply I received.

P.S. I have also read something along the line on the second part of his comments on various forums, but I guess it doesn't matter to me since I ain't buying...

The agreement is STILL in place, and unless it is voided in the next few days, it will be in place, ready to enforce after January 20. So, yes, we still think Smith & Wesson should be avoided by gun activists.

Additionally, there have been MANY reports that the quality of their revolvers is not what it was before they sold us out.

--chip
Ward W. 'Chip' Fetrow, III
GUB@VCDL.org
 

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:
Tess wrote:
The issue is that the company that bought S&W has just quietly taken over, and has never repudiated the agreements S&W made.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Wesson
Agreement of 2000 In March 2000, Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration in order to avoid lawsuits.[2] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns, cutting into their market share. [3][4] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), publicly renounced the agreement which was received positively by the firearms community.
"Publicaly Renouncing" it means nothing IMO unless they void the agreement.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I don't have a ready cite for the current S&W ownership's statements on the Clinton deal however I do recall that their position is that the agreement while in place is not in force and has never been in force and, given the length of time since the agreement and the fact that it was never put in force that it is now barred from any enforcement by laches (from law.com [font="arial, helvetica, swiss"]laches n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party). The current ownership has expressed publicly their intent to challenge any attempted enforcement of the agreement which they, again, are of the opinion is no longer valid due to to laches. I remember reading something about it on The Gun Zone and a few other places and a few years ago came across either their public statement on the matter or a transcript of public statements they had made on the matter, I don't recall which. I think that punishing the current owners, management and employees for the bad acts of the prior owners and management is detrimental to our position and rights.

And no, I am not an S&W fan boy. The only S&W I own is approximately 100 years old, still a great shooter and a family heirloom.
[/font]
 
Top