Oldgringo wrote:What does an Illinois bill/law have to do with a Texas gun purchase by me?
Nothing if you don't care about Springfield and Rock River supporting gun control.
Springfield and Rock River care about their business of making and selling guns. I'd like for them to stay in business.
Why would anyone patronize a business that is willing to sacrifice a person's 2A rights ( no matter in what State)in order to bolster the businesses bottom line? We have too many other options.
Are you suggesting that I go throw my Springfields and Rugers in the river?
Oldgringo wrote:What does an Illinois bill/law have to do with a Texas gun purchase by me?
Nothing if you don't care about Springfield and Rock River supporting gun control.
Springfield and Rock River care about their business of making and selling guns. I'd like for them to stay in business.
Why would anyone patronize a business that is willing to sacrifice a person's 2A rights ( no matter in what State)in order to bolster the businesses bottom line? We have too many other options.
Are you suggesting that I go throw my Springfields and Rugers in the river?
I'm suggesting you don't buy any new RRAs or Springfields.
If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
Better stop shopping at Walmart, Target, etc. too.
At a March Senate hearing, however, Keller stated that IFMA would drop its opposition to SB-1657 and go neutral if legislators gave the state’s gun makers a pass. State Senator Don Harmon delivered on his end of the deal with an amendment exempting big box stores and manufacturers from this scheme.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
crazy2medic wrote:If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
^This^
One's craving for universal constitutional carry notwithstanding, these companies have employees and communities dependent on them along with untold other financial considerations. They can't just pick up and leave their facilities at the 'drop of a hat'. If one chooses to not purchase from them, don't.
Having said that, who has not removed their 'carry' lately to enter a facility/business because they had no other choice. I left my Springfield Compact 1911 in the truck yesterday to go vote.
crazy2medic wrote:If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
^This^
One's craving for universal constitutional carry notwithstanding, these companies have employees and communities dependent on them along with untold other financial considerations. They can't just pick up and leave their facilities at the 'drop of a hat'. If one chooses to not purchase from them, don't.
Having said that, who has not removed their 'carry' lately to enter a facility/business because they had no other choice. I left my Springfield Compact 1911 in the truck yesterday to go vote.
My 1911 had separation issues as I voted yesterday as well. I think disarming to vote is just plain stupid.
crazy2medic wrote:If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
^This^
One's craving for universal constitutional carry notwithstanding, these companies have employees and communities dependent on them along with untold other financial considerations. They can't just pick up and leave their facilities at the 'drop of a hat'. If one chooses to not purchase from them, don't.
Having said that, who has not removed their 'carry' lately to enter a facility/business because they had no other choice. I left my Springfield Compact 1911 in the truck yesterday to go vote.
My 1911 had separation issues as I voted yesterday as well. I think disarming to vote is just plain stupid.
HB 560 would have fixed this.
Just sayin'.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14
crazy2medic wrote:If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
^This^
One's craving for universal constitutional carry notwithstanding, these companies have employees and communities dependent on them along with untold other financial considerations. They can't just pick up and leave their facilities at the 'drop of a hat'. If one chooses to not purchase from them, don't.
Having said that, who has not removed their 'carry' lately to enter a facility/business because they had no other choice. I left my Springfield Compact 1911 in the truck yesterday to go vote.
My 1911 had separation issues as I voted yesterday as well. I think disarming to vote is just plain stupid.
HB 560 would have fixed this.
Just sayin'.
For whatever reason HB 560 went down in flames and it was supposed to be the flagship bill that we all wanted. There are some people in the leadership roles that need some serious scrunity before the next legislative session. In my opinion I think either our leaders aren't being honest with us or they are giving us lip service as the proceed with their own agenda's. No reason why HB 560 shouldn't have been advanced instead of a bill to help those who can't get a LTC. IMHO HB 560 should have been first and then Constitutional Carry next session, not the other way around. I guess the squeaky wheel does get the oil!
