• 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.

NATIONALLY BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA

Max Entropy

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

Gee, thanks.

It already sucks enough around here and you're trying to make it suck even more.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

It's a great idea. It's not difficult to imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars that could be lost if gun owners everywhere refused to spend money on anything that would in any way benefit a person place or thing from California.

California's urban areas largely suffer from a victim mentality complex, where the vast majority of the people think their lives aren't worth defending, and that taking risks is morally superior to being prepared. When people are socially engineered to be this dim witted and ignorant, it takes a monumental action to revive their basic instincts to want to survive.

Gun owner imposed economic sanctions could theoretically be an effective way to do it, particularly if the NRA and other big organizations got behind it. Only trouble is they won't.
 

caskydiver

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, ,
imported post

Agreed...money is money and that's what makes something likeI proposed so difficult. But Barrett did it...they put priciple over profit and gained my respect. They refused to sell or service any .50 cal to any CA law enforcement or state agency since CA imposed a ban on the .50.
 

caskydiver

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, ,
imported post

I was referring only to state agencies and departments, not private citizens.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

caskydiver wrote:
Why not get gun and ammo manufacturers, gunsmiths,ballistics labs, etc. to stop selling their goods and services to any CA state or local agency such as police departments, sheriffs, etc. just like Barrett did when CA banned the .50 cal??

Because it needlessly puts innocent law-abiding folks in harms way. This is why I like my idea better. Stated earlier but reposted below. I will add this, ban sales not only to the politicians, but also to any personal protectors they may employ (ie body guards). Which I think might be a good idea for other outspoken anti-gunners like Rosie O'Donnell.

These companies have the right to refuse service to anyone. Whyare they supporting the hypocrisy?! If you're an outspoken anti-gunner and/or politician then the manufacturers, dealers, distributors, etc., should help them live according to their own propaganda. Don't you think?
I say all gun and ammomanufacturer's, dealers, distributors, etc. reserve their right to refuse service and sales to any and all politicians...and their families...who are anti's, who own guns, want to own guns, buy ammo, etc. End the hypocrisy!Including range owners...refuse them the opportunity and enjoyment of sport shooting and training. Might simply be symbolic, but its a statement that would get attention.
 
Top