This is a discussion on Gun manufacturers (Kimber) continue to aid gun banners within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Kerbouchard Ok, this article is outrageous. That's right. It's absurd. One thing has nothing to do with the other. For those of ...
Just what we need, a bunch of yahoos up in arms about an AMERICAN gun manufacturer who sells high quality firearms to COPS!
By the way, you'd better also express your outrage to Glock, Sig, Beretta, S & W, Ruger, Colt, etc., etc., etc. . . . and all the others who supply weapons to PDs in California.
And hooray for all of you who are so proud of your Brazilian-made SAs, who then complain that nobody buys American.
There's more than one kind of sheep .
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
The real issue is California state legislature, and the US congress for not passing a country wide mandate of CCL repeatability similar to driver’s license.
Before I moved to Florida I lived in Yonjers, the home of Kimber. They had a job opening I was well qualified for. Went on the interview. Somewhere in the conversation it came up Kimber made guns. The CFO actually asked me if I knew they made guns. I told him I thought they made a nice gun and one of the best. That interview was over in about 5 minutes.
Exact same thing happened at Colt. They told me part of the job was going to Connecticut to see "the gun guys". I said GREAT. Interview over.
So don't be surprised.
Gun control is hitting what you aim at
2) Agreat deal.
Sociologically, its referred to as a "more." What's good for the goose is good for the gander. By approving stratified armaments for its enforcing agents vis-a-vis the citizenry, the government is reinforcing the negative relationship between Citizen and Governor (note, not "Representative".) If allowed to continue, the Governing body will expand its force disparity to "ensure compliance" of the governed. Please also note that it is recognized fact in Criminal Justice that law only controls the law abiding. Essentially, in context, legislators are ensuring a flock of sacrificial sheep to feed the wolves in the hope of barganing to prevent outright revolt by the citizens or revolution (ala the narco civil war currently running in Mexico) by the wolves.
If the producers of implements of force do not enable the Governing body, the GB will remain, if not a toothless, at least toothed-in-parity tiger. Let the protectors (the so-called "LA Linebackers") be armed equally to the citizens, and see how long/how well the hold up to the narcos. If the structure of the Bureaucracy is endangered, they may remember where their power comes from, being forced to breathe slightly less rarified air.
Regards Ronnie Barrett: he well knows what LAPD/LASO use his .50s for. He has indeed diminished their capability, and it was not cheap for him to do so. Publicizing the move was wise on his part, as I'm sure he picked up some support-sales to offset the loss of the contract.
"Lots of bullets means lots of chances to make use of expert marksmanship skills" --- Gecko45
"Some people ask: shoot to maim, or shoot to kill? I say, empty the chamber and let the good Lord decide." - Deputy Garcia (Reno 911)
2) Not hardly.
I disagree with the California Legislature vehemently. That is why I moved back home as soon as my service was up. I find that my values are not representated by the 'average citizen' in California. The majority of the population of California has voted for people who 'represent' them.
The legislature does handicap it's citizenry. I will agree with that (but the citizens VOTED for their legislatures). I will also agree that the criminals will not follow the law. I have said this many times.
I do not believe in Gun Control because the only people it controls are those who are inclined to obey the law in the first place.
With that said. The police force is facing a bolder and far more dangerous criminal element because the citizenry has been disarmed. The 'subjects' of California have voted in this legislature, and have essentially voted themselves into submission. They are relying on the police to protect them.
While, I for one, find it appalling that the citizens of the State of California would vote to disarm themselves, that is, in fact, what they have done. It is not a dictatorship. It is the representatives of the State of California that have made these laws.
Just because the sheep(and I hate that word) choose to graze, does not mean the sheepdog(I hate that word, too), should have it's teeth removed.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
We will extrapolate your ideology. Something I do not believe you have done before making your comment.
What are the results if you get what you want?
A. Manufacturers boycott California Police.
B. Now law-abiding citizens and police are in the same boat, which is what you want.
C. Criminals do not care, therefore they obtain illegal weapons.
D. Criminals become even bolder because they can obtain firepower the police cannot.
E. Crime, and especially violent crime increase.
F. The anti crowd screams about the accessibility of guns in their Utopian society, and blames other states.
G. California legislature enacts stricter laws.
H. Crime becomes rampant.
So, now we come to a crossroads.
In your perfect outcome thousands have lost their lives, thus proving that gun control does not work, therefore California has an emergency session and repeals all of its gun laws.
Now, back to reality...California blames other states for the incoming guns. Sets up more checkpoints in bad neighborhoods. Eventually declares it an emergency and calls in the National Guard to control the populace. Meanwhile the idiots in D.C. are doing the same thing and still blaming other states for their problems. After all, if the guns weren't available, the criminals couldn't get them.
By taking the teeth from the sheepdog, you aren't protecting the sheepdog or the sheep. You're turning the sheep and the sheepdog over to the wolves.
I would be much more inclined to agree with your opinion if you just outright said that the people who were dumb enough to vote for the laws to disarm themselves should be removed from the gene pool by the criminals, as fitting Darwin.
While I may disagree with the laws that the police are trusted to enforce, I do not agree with sending them to slaughter.
I respect the LEO's too much to allow the 'California Citizenry' to make dumb laws; expect somebody else to enforce them, and then send them to do it ill-equipped.
Boycotting a firearms manufacture because they sell to California police agencies just doesn't make any sense. With that rationale, the anti's win by default, because we would not be able to buy any handguns because all manufactures sell to California law enforcement agencies. Therefore, since we are boycotting such manufactures, handguns disappear from the American scene.
Sounds like a plan hatched by the Brady bunch!
The bottomline for California is that if the electorate keeps sending the idiots to Sacramento, they get the government they deserve. If they aren't interested enough to fight the battle, why should we non-Californians?
For all of you who read the article and are thinking about distancing yourselves from Kimber, please feel fee to PM me for my mailing address.
You would be violating your own principles if you tried to sell your Kimbers, so you can send them to me and I'll add them to my collection.
I'll be happy and you'll have a clear conscience.
You know, after reading a little more of this thread, I think I may go buy another Kimber.
Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.