Joined
·
10,864 Posts
Magpul, as well as any company who continues to do business with the police agencies in states that ban certain firearms, magazines/limits, types of ammo(hollow points/lead rounds), or anything else that the legislators feel like banning, are eventually screwing themselves along with us for not saying no to these states/cities and the Federal government.
Here is a post/article pertaining to the Magpul particulars;
GrantCunningham.com - Revolver Liberation Alliance blog
Having a company in our industry publicly declare that they recognize need as a valid reason to sell to a specific part of the public is the next best thing to carving the concept on stone tablets and having a certain Senator from California carry them down the mount, loudly declaring "Thou Shalt NOT!"
Don't get me wrong; I understand that a Magpul boycott of a state's police agencies would be unlikely to have any effect on their lawmaker's votes. The police aren't going to lobby the Legislature for a repeal of the law because they have their exemption; there is no incentive for them to urge a repeal, and no boycott by the industry is likely to ever change that. I also recognize that a boycott won't do anything to forestall the burgeoning tiered society we're creating with such exemptions to these laws.
None of that matters. Efficacy is a poor argument; principle is not.
I don't care if a company's boycott against a state is successful. I do care about the lack of such a boycott cementing into the public's minds that some people need certain things and others don't, and that ownership of those items should be based on that need. Allowing these companies to enact, publicize, and defend policies which recognize the need argument -- or, at the very least, don’t voice any opposition to it -- lends credence to one of the prohibitionists’ main and most successful talking points.
END
What these companies are neglecting to realize is that when other states decide they want to ban whatever it is they sell, sooner or later what they(the manufacturer of whatever gun product) sell will be no longer available to the average citizen, thereby reducing their sales dramatically, and ultimately signing their own death warrant through eventual loss of sales/profits/bottom line.
All it will do is leave very few manufacturers in the business who make a very large and wide array of products which the police and military will need.
NOT A VERY WISE BUSINESS PRACTICE.
I aplaud them putting the states they are currently in on notice that they may move, but that is not enough.
Here is a post/article pertaining to the Magpul particulars;
GrantCunningham.com - Revolver Liberation Alliance blog
Having a company in our industry publicly declare that they recognize need as a valid reason to sell to a specific part of the public is the next best thing to carving the concept on stone tablets and having a certain Senator from California carry them down the mount, loudly declaring "Thou Shalt NOT!"
Don't get me wrong; I understand that a Magpul boycott of a state's police agencies would be unlikely to have any effect on their lawmaker's votes. The police aren't going to lobby the Legislature for a repeal of the law because they have their exemption; there is no incentive for them to urge a repeal, and no boycott by the industry is likely to ever change that. I also recognize that a boycott won't do anything to forestall the burgeoning tiered society we're creating with such exemptions to these laws.
None of that matters. Efficacy is a poor argument; principle is not.
I don't care if a company's boycott against a state is successful. I do care about the lack of such a boycott cementing into the public's minds that some people need certain things and others don't, and that ownership of those items should be based on that need. Allowing these companies to enact, publicize, and defend policies which recognize the need argument -- or, at the very least, don’t voice any opposition to it -- lends credence to one of the prohibitionists’ main and most successful talking points.
END
What these companies are neglecting to realize is that when other states decide they want to ban whatever it is they sell, sooner or later what they(the manufacturer of whatever gun product) sell will be no longer available to the average citizen, thereby reducing their sales dramatically, and ultimately signing their own death warrant through eventual loss of sales/profits/bottom line.
All it will do is leave very few manufacturers in the business who make a very large and wide array of products which the police and military will need.
NOT A VERY WISE BUSINESS PRACTICE.
I aplaud them putting the states they are currently in on notice that they may move, but that is not enough.