Pointman wrote:
Wasn't it Smith & Wesson that
buddied up to the Clinton administration and all but patted Bill on the back for gun grabbing? Isn't that the company that made people's stomach's turn? I could be wrong, so we should check with the NRA, GOA, VCDL, heck, even the New York Times andC
linton N
ews N
etwork.
We had this discussion before and I posted a bunch of stuff about why, IMO, to no longer boycott S&W. I don't remember it all off the top of my head and no longer have the cites together but here are the highlights (if anyone wants the cites it's in one of my posts from the last 9 months):
S&W has been sold/bought since then.
The current ownership does not/did not support the agreement.
The senior management involved in the Clinton Administration/Boston public housing agreement fiasco were employed by the prior owners, a British company -- actually, from what I can ascertain, noone involved in making or approving said agreement still work for the company, although one former manager who previously left S&W rather than support the agreement does again or at least did as of a few years ago.
S&W's position is that the agreement has voided as a function of law and no longer has, if it ever had, any force or effect - the longer time that elapses withouth the gov't trying to enforce anything, the stronger the legal position that it is void. They (S&W) do, or at least did, have a special "war chest" set aside specifically to fight against implementation/enforcement of the agreement if the gov't were to ever try to enforce it.
S&W is now again American owned and managed.