But why would you contribute to politicians who get an "F" from the NRA??  It isn't like they will moderate their position any (and the pols in question didn't). 

Now that is a good point.  I can excuse donating to those in power, but only if you are going to hold them accountable at the end of the day.  If they don't earn their donation by voting your way, then dump them and move on to those who will.

So, you're okay with SA and RRA giving Senate President John Cullerton, a viciously rabid gun control mad dog, $10,000 every single year since the IFMA was formed by Reese and Larson?

Once again, yes, if they are held accountable for how they vote.  No, if they continue to vote against you.  It seems as if the IFMA was a poor lobbyist, as well as a poor decision maker.

SA and RRA weren't looking out for their customers.
They were looking out for themselves and could care less snout their distributors and dealers.

Sounds like literally every single businessman that I have ever met, and especially the ones I admire.

Quote from: Bud on May 24, 2017, 08:26:53 pm

SA and RRA weren't looking out for their customers.
They were looking out for themselves and could care less snout their distributors and dealers.

Sounds like literally every single businessman that I have ever met, and especially the ones I admire.

And as a firearms owner I'm looking out for myself, and encouraging all other firearms owners to lookout for themselves as well, buy doing what little I can to put the screws to anyone who undermines my 2A rights. 

The harder we put the screws to them the better, and if I can cause them to give up a sizable hunk of cash to fund an organization that's going to aggressively defend my 2A right by putting the screws to any other scumbag who attempts or supports attempts to infringe upon those rights even better.

By your own logic you should admire me as well, after all I'm looking out for #1, and that's just smart and good business right? Why should I care if it causes SA and RRA pain or hardship, right?

If they want to try and make amends then they need to make a sacrifice, and that's gonna cost them. Something significant, not a little token apology.   Trying to pass it along to the customer isn't going to work because they'd just price themselves out of the market. It's going to have to come out of the responsible parties pockets; management, board members, and shareholders. If they don't like if, fine.   Maybe they'll survive the fallout, maybe they won't, but anyone buying their products is supporting a business that has proven will chuck it customers under a bus...not exactly an indication of great intelligence on the part of the customers, is it? 
"Here, take my money so you can pay someone to screw me over. I admire your cold blooded, self centered business acumen so much I'm willing to cheer you on while you sacrifice me to improve your profit margin because when you look out for yourself it's smart but when I do it it's just whiny and naively idealistic. Principles are for suckers."

 Okay, I have been rather nice about this so far, but now I am going to say it: It is obvious that any experience you have in business is superficial at best.  You just don't get it.  For-profit companies are in business to make money - period.  They are not in business to run a charity, to lose money voluntarily, or to bow to the demands of the rabidly vocal, yet insignificant minority that demands they perform penance.  Or for that matter, any customer who 'demands' anything. 

The key words in there are insignificant minority.  If that "rabidly vocal, insignificant minority" can get a significantly large number of customers and potential customers to join them businesses do pay attention.   With current levels of apathy that doesn't often happen but as the saying goes, "Failing to try is tying to fail".     

A favorite saying of mine is: "We do not let the customers run the business for us."

I'm well aware of the fact that businesses are in it solely for the money.  I've had the memorable experience of being present during a directors meeting and listening to the CEO end a discussion about the cost of putting armor on trucks to protect the drivers vs the cost of paying out death benefits.   It was decided that paying out death benefits was the less expensive option of the two.  There were ample other demonstrations of the warm and fuzzy values with which the company was guided.  Like them or not I'm not arguing with them, they make perfect sense.   The way to get companies to "do the right thing" isn't to appeal to their better nature...they don't have one.  You make it profitable for them to do so, or conversely you  make it unprofitable for them not to do so.
BTW the counter to, "We do not let the customers run the business for us" is, "We've decided to go with an alternate vendor."    If the customer decides, for whatever reason, they don't want to do business with you then you're not getting paid.  Getting paid is good.   

Furthermore, understand that in a business setting, the customer always pays for everything.  New roof on the shop?  The boss's kid's dental work?  That other customer who thought he would be cute and refuse to pay?  Yep, all those are paid for by the customer.

No kidding?  I thought there was a magic money machine that spat out cash to cover operating costs.
Generally speaking, yes, costs get passed onto the consumer when the business raises prices to cover the added cost.  Unless the consumers refuses to pay anymore for the goods or services.    If they can get it from the customer they will, but if the customers just refuses to buy from them at the increased price it has to come from somewhere else or sales will drop as the customer buys from a competitor. 
In this case, you may note there isn't a shortage of firearms manufacturer's out there at the moment, or a shortage of firearms available in the marketplace.   
 

So where, in your apparently limited understanding, do you come up with the notion that executives are going to just shell out thousands (millions?) of dollars to appease a small portion of the customer base (that will never truly be appeased with anything short of bankruptcy) when the vast majority will soon forget this 'offence,' if they ever cared at all?

That depends entirely on how large a slice of the customer base is participating in the boycott, and how long that slice of the customer base holds it's grudge. If the boycott costs them more than concession does they'll do what preserves as much profit as possible.   
Now when you're saying most boycotts aren't successful at achieving their goals, no argument from me there, but the rare few that have succeeded have something in common.  The attempt was made instead of shrugging shoulders and being apathetic about it.     

The amount of effort required of someone wanting to boycott a manufacturer is next to nothing, you simply don't buy their product.  When there are ample alternatives available in the marketplace it costs nothing. 
 If one wants they can spend as much time and effort as pleases them on encouraging others to do likewise.   Or not.     

If you've worked yourself into a froth convincing yourself I'm bound and determined to lead some sort of organized boycott you've an overactive imagination.   Ditto if you have managed to convince yourself that I believe my position alone on the matter will have any effect, or that righteous indignation will carry the day.   
 What I do believe is that there is a slight chance that  people in the firearms community will decide to buy from someone other than these two firms, and that word of mouth grumblings to new and old shooters about the issue might increase that number via word of mouth to the point where it effects sales.   
SA seems to think so as well, which is why they're trying to do damage control.    If they didn't believe this fiasco was going to cost them market share and thus money they wouldn't have bothered.   


 

You said it, not me, but here is another quote for you to ponder: "'All or nothing' is a stupid position.  Almost never will you get everything that you want, leaving you in the end, with nothing."

Here's one in return for you to ponder: “When the final result is expected to be a compromise, it is often prudent to start from an extreme position.”     

I've had the memorable experience of being present during a directors meeting and listening to the CEO end a discussion about the cost of putting armor on trucks to protect the drivers vs the cost of paying out death benefits.   It was decided that paying out death benefits was the less expensive option of the two.     

No.  I have determined that somewhere in the dark recesses of your mind, you have come to feel that it would be a better, stronger, firearms industry if SA and RRA went under.  I consider that the height of foolishness, and I strongly disagree.  If you want to work up others, go ahead.  Go ahead.  'Try,' as you say.  And if you happen to convince some poor sucker to dump his M1A, kindly remember to point him my way.

I think it would be a better, stronger, firearms industry if any manufacturers who cut deals for themselves with legislators at the expense of the rest of the firearms community were seen to suffer heavy financial losses as a result.      Companies want to increase profits, and if collusion with anti-gun legislators  results in consumer backlash that eliminates or reduces those profits significantly the realization that selling out the group as a whole for special treatment for themselves isn't a winning business strategy.


Why would I try and convince someone to "dump" a firearm they already own?
Or for that matter why would I discourage buying and selling a used firearm by these manufacturers?   
Neither would effect SA or RRA's revenue. 
I'll just assume that statement was an attempt to craft a strawman, unless you believe that "dumping"  a used firearm would somehow cause financial loss to the manufacturer?     

Just a note to clarify SAs and RRAs ownership.

SA is owned by Denny and Tom Reese. There are no other owners.

RRA is owned by Chuck Larson and his family. There are no other owners

Fair enough. When I g**gled them all I saw was "privately traded".   

As it is, if people of your like mind seem to be getting any traction, I plan to buy a new M1A, just to offset the lost sales.  However, if the used market is getting flooded with cheap used ones...  Even I have a price.

Because rewarding and protecting those who attack the 2nd Amendment and provide financial support to the anti gun politicians is always the right thing to do

I am done with the pissing match in this thread...

Well thats's good, you seem to be the only person who was engaged in one. 

Anyone got a used EMP they're selling?

If you don't mind my asking what company was this?

I'm well aware of the fact that businesses are in it solely for the money.  I've had the memorable experience of being present during a directors meeting and listening to the CEO end a discussion about the cost of putting armor on trucks to protect the drivers vs the cost of paying out death benefits.   It was decided that paying out death benefits was the less expensive option of the two.  There were ample other demonstrations of the warm and fuzzy values with which the company was guided.  Like them or not I'm not arguing with them, they make perfect sense.   The way to get companies to "do the right thing" isn't to appeal to their better nature...they don't have one.  You make it profitable for them to do so, or conversely you  make it unprofitable for them not to do so.

Because rewarding and protecting those who attack the 2nd Amendment and provide financial support to the anti gun politicians is always the right thing to do