TexasCHLforum.com

aardwolf wrote: Atlas Shrugged, 1957

As much as I dig the quote from Atlas Shrugged, it still does not dismiss the behavior of (alleged) outlaws. Our society is not [yet] in the state alluded to by this quote. It is not true that nobody can live their life without breaking some part of the law. It may very well be true that many of us have a hard time exercising the discipline or restraint that it takes to live our lives without breaking the law, or that we may inadvertently break the law out of ignorance of the law. But Glock, allegedly, intentionally and deliberately broke laws they knew about and deliberately covered it up, and not every gun manufacturer is forced to engage in this type of behavior as a normal course of doing business.

Keith B wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

mr.72 wrote: Maybe I am only saying this so the demand for Glock pistols will go down and their prices will come down a little so I can buy one for myself

taking this a bit further OT ... You can afford a Kahr but not a Glock? Or you just can't afford both? Just curious because my long-gone Kahr is still the most expensive pistol I ever purchased - more even than my Walther PPS and much more expensive than my Glock 23.

The Kahr CW series guns are running mid-$300 range. If you move to the PM series, then you are looking at around $600+.

I would love to find a CW Kahr in the mid-$300 range. They are running about $410 at the extreme low end, which is close to competitive with a Glock. Kahr P-series compete more on price with Glock or even cost a little more, but they are a niche market and do not compete directly with Glock.

But yeah, I can't afford a Glock unless I sell my Kahr. I just don't have a ton of money I available to spend on guns that I don't absolutely need. But I certainly wouldn't mind having a G26 and a G19. I almost think they are worth their $500ish price tags. $400/ea for a new gun with a warranty and 2 mags and I'd be in.

And no, Jim, I don't really care about the politics, history, or ethics claims of a manufacturer or supplier of goods or services. If I went down that road, I'd not have water to drink or a house to live in or shoes on my feet or a car to drive etc. And I certainly wouldn't be paying taxes. So once you let the camel's nose under the tent then you might as well just buy things based on the value of the actual product or service and leave the moral or political judging out of it.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: After I read it I give it to my friend who carries his XD .40 24/7, but still won't join
the NRA to protect his 2A rights. Sheesh!

Perhaps there are other reasons people who support 2A rights don't join the NRA.

And FWIW the $115K Glock gave to the NRA is chump change for a company awash in profits giving to an organization that clearly is supporting the very market upon which the company relies. But maybe Glock, a maker of defensive handguns, is reluctant to throw much more support towards an outfit who has the appearance to only be supported by a tiny fringe of gun owners in the USA, is easily politically demonized, and often falls into the trap of being seen as an organization supporting hunters and not much else.

Sorry this is OT...

There are probably gun manufacturers out there who are in the USA to begin with, not committing or even accused of committing a whole host of crimes, and also even support your favorite 2A organization with a higher percentage of their profits, from whom you could be buying your guns. Maybe I am only saying this so the demand for Glock pistols will go down and their prices will come down a little so I can buy one for myself

TDDude wrote:My complaint is that some laws are written so that it's impossible to follow everything and that administrations then are able to pick and choose who they want to go after.

Well, that appears to be based on a couple of assumptions:

1. Glock was just going about regular business as any other normal business would do, and ran afoul of some obscure or conflicting minutiae of law
2. The investigations into Glock are politically motivated

Unfortunately, if the allegations outlined in this article wind up being found to be true, then Glock has been very deliberately violating a lot of non-obscure, clear and obvious laws, and there is an elaborate web employed to obscure investigation into this activity. Also it appears clear that these are not politically-motivated investigations, but who knows and who cares. If I am speeding and I get a ticket in Austin, is it politically-motivated because Austin tends to be more liberal than where I live, and I am far more conservative than the Austin city council? Well if Glock is breaking the law then any investigation is valid, whether it is politically-motivated or not. I don't think this is what you are doing, but to suggest that politically-motivated investigations have no merit because of the motivation, regardless of whether the party is guilty, is tantamount to justifying breaking the law as long as you ascribe to a particular set of political views.

This type of hypocrisy is all too common in politics. Bill Clinton's purjury is one such example. We swept that under the rug. When you are a popular political figure, you can commit crimes with impunity. When you are unpopular, you get prosecuted. But in either case, the hypocrisy is in letting the guilty get away with it, and not in the investigation of the guilty. If we want Glock to get away with their alleged crimes because we agree with their politics, then we are joining in the same hypocrisy that allowed Clinton to get away with purjury and a whole host of unproven crimes that were not politically expedient to prosecute. Careful when you call the kettle black that you are not eventually revealed to be the pot.

TDDude wrote: This administration HATES private ownership of guns and if this makes firearms harder for us lowly citizens to get, that's their game. What better way to hurt the private firearms industry than to go after the biggest player that doesn't have any US military contracts (that I know of).

The Glock issues and investigations predate the Obama administration.

I think it'd be a very bad idea for gun owners to defend disregard for the law by a gun manufacturer.

Keith B wrote: But don't you carry a 'Moon Gun' yourself Mr. 72??

I would, but it's doing time in the Massachusetts Moonie Gun Clinic.

But alas, I was trying to draw attention to what I see as hypocrisy. I hear Kahr attacked all the time because of the assumed association with the Moonies, but rarely do I hear anyone refusing to buy a Glock because of alleged illegal activity by the company. Illegal is ok, but owned by the son of Sun Moon is not.

FWIW I would buy a Glock, Kahr, a gun built by communists in China, or one hand-crafted by Fidel Castro himself if it was a quality product that worked well and met my needs as a user. I gave up judging products based on the morality, ethics or religious beliefs of their company's ownership a long time ago. Moral or legal corruption at some level in business and politics is all but universal. The only thing not so universal is our awareness of it.

joe817 wrote:Fascinating article Jim. Thanks for posting. Corruption seems rampant at Glock. Shady dealings, payoffs, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, offshore accounts, shell corporations.

Yeah but at least they are not associated with the "moonies"