Unintended consequences

Or; Action, Reaction, Synthesis
Or; Thesis, Antitheses, Synthesis
Or; “I’m not sure that it means what you think it means.”

Refusing to sell to government entities that attack the second amendment is fairly popular, it certainly has made good press, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but I’m not sure people are thinking things through.

Oskar Schindler was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party, and he had extensive business dealings with the Nazis. Just keep that in mind.

Let’s say we all refuse to sell to any government entity that even infringes (literally; “touches around the fringes”) on second amendment rights. That would be all of them. Just keep that in mind; we are talking ONLY about degrees of violation when we say that New York or Chicago is bad and OUR jurisdiction is…what…a bit less egregious? Or does your state and local .gov commit zero infringements? So we all refuse to sell to any government entities. What will be their obvious reaction, for 100% sure and for certain? Taxpayer funded, government owned munitions factories of course, with union workers, full benefits and a retirement plan, and now they are, one way or another, competing with the private industry. Good luck with that. OR, you know all it takes is for one individual company to sell to your worst violators, they will become the next General Electric, i.e. a pet company for the tyrants, funneling their profits via multiple channels into the Democrat Party. They’ll arrange it that way just for that purpose. It’s what Progressives do.

6 thoughts on “Unintended consequences

  1. Ideally the cops would be buying in the exact same market as we are because there’d be no difference in what we could buy.

    Damn reality not being ideal.

  2. But when the Government ran the Arsenals and Made Firearms, they could never make enough. Just look at who made Garands. So, if THEY want more Guns, they’ll still have to get them from Private Industry.

  3. Having the .gov operate the arms and munitions factories is a sure way to ensure cost overruns, production delays, and substandard quality. They’d be lucky if they could produce a couple cartons of .22LR. Maybe they should consider a return to cap and ball?

    • The shit-eating Soviets and Chicoms managed to produce a fair number of Kalashnikovs, and a few rounds to feed them.

      • They also produced them in quantity during the cold war while devoting roughly one third of their economy to military production, in order to keep up with our ridiculously high of nearly six percent . So, yes, they DID produce a lot, but not at a reasonable cost.

  4. Wrong.
    Why?
    Because most states could not afford to start up manufacturing firearms, nor would the progressives legislate to do so.
    No state will manufacture firearms, the costs to do so along with political environment backlash would make it impossible.
    Refusing sales to LEO agencies in a state by state basis would work, but unfortunately Colt so far hasn’t the balls to do so.

Comments are closed.