Quote of the day—Smith & Wesson

AOBC’s customer base of knowledgeable, law-abiding firearms purchasers views criminal acts solely as the responsibility of the criminal actor, and does not blame manufacturers of firearms, including Smith & Wesson, for criminal behavior. Actions which seek the approval of non-customers or anti-gun groups would not only be futile, they would damage AOBC’s business and reputation.

Smith & Wesson
February 8, 2019
Smith & Wesson Spurns ‘Smart Guns’ Despite Pressure from Investors
[There was a time when people were saying “Smith & Wesson must die.” And there was a significant chance that might have come about because of the backlash against their misbehavior.

Apparent they learned their lesson this time.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Smith & Wesson

  1. I’d rather make the point that the ones that bought S&W at a bargain basement price more than likely understood the lesson the former -nearly bankrupt- idiotic owners learned.

    • As I recall, those former owners were British — one of the many countries without a Constitution and without any right to self defense.

  2. “…activist investors…led by the Adrian Dominican Sisters”

    F’ing pagans. Heathen hordes. This is a part of the “ecumenical movement”, which seeks to blend the various religions together and make them into an authoritarian, church-as-state, political force. This is a necessary part of the “Hope and Change”, the “Fundamental Transformation” and the “Redistributave Change” which Obama mentioned.

    Various popes have already declared that private property is “immoral”, and called for global redistribution. Pope Francis has been promoting the whole Climate Change hoax, and the papacy has just recently signed a Declaration of cooperation and “fraternity” with Islam. Cute, ain’t it? All one big, happy, larcenous, rapacious family working in peace and harmony for global “justice”.

    “The group said its goal is to achieve social justice and change the way gun companies operate.

    “We’re looking to change the system.”

    Just keep that in mind.

    “The system” they want to change (eradicate) is of course the system based on the American Principles of Liberty, which has roots in Biblical principle (which they hate, and keep close, at the same time). They’ll always point to the worst things ever done in America as the definition of America, and of the Juseao/Christian West, and as the reasons why “the system” must go.

    It’s very clever, and generally it’s been working.

    The ecumenical “religious” movement for political influence has a presence in the Untied Nations too. Raise your hands; how many of you knew that? Well if you didn’t, you’d better start knowing it. Here is one of the World Council of Churches web sites;

    Note that it is a global network with global, political goals, including “social justice”.

    Our American VP, Mike Pence is also a very ecumenical sort of guy, having referred to himself as a Born Again Evangelical Catholic, or some such gibberish. And gibberish it may be, but these people have a global, anti-libertarian agenda, they’re pushing it in the name of “God” (which is blasphemy), and they’ve been making headway.

    So yeah; you might want to spend some time reconnoitering down in that dirty, dark rabbit hole. It’s filthy, it’s smelly, you’ll want to take a hot shower afterwards, but it has to be done. The next time you hear of a “religious” organization buying up stocks to gain influence over corporations, or having a seat at a UN conference on human welfare, World Health, or trade, etc., maybe you’ll understand a lot more about that “ecumenical” gig and it’s goals and tactics.

  3. When S&W capitulated the last time, they were facing 29 lawsuits, and even if they had won every one, the legal fees would have bankrupted them. The Clinton Administration told them if they signed the agreement, all the cases would go away. Plus, their British owner told them that if they didn’t sign, the owner would put them out of business. In other words, they were being blackmailed by the government, and by their owners. How many choices did they have?
    (By the way, what happened to S&W was the impetus for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. So something good did come out of it.)

    • The annoying thing is that the resulting freefall of S&W’s stock value didn’t hurt the British group’s bottom line in a measurable way. More along the lines of a petty cash loss. It would have been useful if it had damaged them in a significant fashion, enough to dissuade other foreign investors from playing with our gun industry manufacturers.

Comments are closed.