Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Springfield and RRA liquidation  (Read 7299 times)

RetroGrouch

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 847

  • Offline
Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2017, 08:00:34 PM »
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).  And if I understand correctly, the lobbyists didn't do the whole "contribute to both parties' candidates" thing, they just gave money to the anti-gun Dems.
Arizona

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #51 on: May 24, 2017, 08:17:42 PM »
    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.
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    Bud

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2739

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #52 on: May 24, 2017, 08:26:53 PM »
    That seems perfectly reasonable for a lobbyist to do, when it is democrats that heavily control the state House, and are even stronger in the Senate.  You want to lobby for something, then you have to deal with those who have the power to give it to you.  Don't think for a minute that their donations were made because anyone at IFMA liked these legislators' positions on guns.
    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?

    Really? Because that's who was funneling the money to anti-gun democrat politicians, the two CEOs of SA and RRA. The lobbyist was not the decision maker, he was the means to do it.
    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.
    MissouriBud
    Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #53 on: May 24, 2017, 09:06:40 PM »
    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. :P
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    ksuguy

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 4702

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #54 on: May 24, 2017, 09:11:25 PM »
    Thanks for the inside info, Bud.  Any news on how the other Illinois manufacturers reacted to this?  I've seen DSA make a few posts about opposing the bill, but they never really commented on Springfield and Rock River from what I've seen. 
    Kansas

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #55 on: May 25, 2017, 10:00:42 AM »

    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. :P

    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? :neener

    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." :facepalm :rotfl



    « Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 10:28:39 AM by LowKey »

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #56 on: May 26, 2017, 06:15:55 PM »
    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. 
    Nothing wrong with that stance.  I never said there was.

    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.
    We're still on the same page...

    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?
    Because those of us who understand the world is not black and white, realize that the whole point is to correct the behavior going forward, not punish the past.  It helps no one but your sense of poetic justice if SA and RRA go down.  No. One.  Not only do they provide quality products, but they are two major forces for advancing gun ownership and the shooting sports, and have been for years.  That they did not behave just as you would like, this time... is no reason to get rid of them.

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

    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.  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?

    "Principles are for suckers."
    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."
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #57 on: June 03, 2017, 10:08:34 AM »

     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.”     

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #58 on: June 03, 2017, 11:15:28 AM »
    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. 
    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. ;)
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #59 on: June 03, 2017, 11:20:50 AM »
    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.     

    :cool
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    Bud

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2739

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #60 on: June 03, 2017, 09:37:19 PM »
    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
    MissouriBud
    Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #61 on: June 04, 2017, 09:54:31 AM »
    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?     

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #62 on: June 04, 2017, 10:11:09 AM »

    :cool

    I've no problem with it as long as the employees are informed of the risks and accept it, which was the case with that company.    The hazard just becomes a point in salary negotiations. Hence the phrase,   "If the money is there, I do not care."

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #63 on: June 04, 2017, 10:14:39 AM »
    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".   

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #64 on: June 04, 2017, 12:30:32 PM »
    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?     
    I am done with the pissing match in this thread, but I will answer this last point for you.

    Yes, gun owners dumping their SA and RRA items on the used market would hurt those companies.  More so than your proposed boycott of new items would.  Why?  Because your boycott will only remove the purchasing of items by those 'enlightened' enough to channel their righteous indignation, whereas if they all also dumped their used items, forcing the prices on the used market down, they would steal sales from other gun owners that would otherwise have bought new items.  If you can get 1000 gun owners to abstain from SA and RRA, you cost them 1000 sales.  However, if you can get 1000 current owners to both abstain from new purchases and dump their current guns, then you have cost them 2000 or more sales.

    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. :cool
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    Bud

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2739

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #65 on: June 04, 2017, 01:36:16 PM »


    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. :cool

    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
    MissouriBud
    Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #66 on: June 04, 2017, 01:57:11 PM »
     :thumbup1
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #67 on: June 04, 2017, 04:58:33 PM »
    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.  :thumbup1

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #68 on: June 04, 2017, 05:25:16 PM »
    Well thats's good, you seem to be the only person who was engaged in one.  :thumbup1
      :neener

    No, seriously.  You aren't seeing my logic, and I'm sure not seeing yours.  It's time to disengage.
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    coyotesfan97

    • WTA LEO
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 3046
    • Life's Short Bite Hard!

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #69 on: June 04, 2017, 05:47:13 PM »
    Anyone got a used EMP they're selling? :whistle
    ArizonaThe bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.  Thucydides 471BC

    "Hey!  Let's be careful out there." Sgt Phil Esterhaus played by Michael Conrad

    Kaso

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6403
    • WTA Hardline Antagonist (aka: Jerk)

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #70 on: June 04, 2017, 05:48:40 PM »
    Anyone got a used EMP they're selling? :whistle
    Don't know, but my brother has had his for a year, and he has yet to fire it.  :bash
    Donald J Trump, by the Grace of God: 45th president of the United States.
    20 January 2017, 12:01pm
    Here's to a great four years!

    Penguin

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1653

    • Offline
    Which company was that?
    « Reply #71 on: June 04, 2017, 09:45:29 PM »
    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.
    Doobie Doobie Doo...

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 194

    • Offline
    Re: Which company was that?
    « Reply #72 on: June 04, 2017, 10:26:07 PM »
    If you don't mind my asking what company was this?
    I don't mind your asking, but I'm not going to name them.  They're still in business and a potential employer if my current employer looses it's contract.

    I will tell you that they're a non-US company based in the middle east, yearly revenue over 1 Billion in USD.

    If anyone isn't aware of it, business in the middle east can be rather dodgey at times. Or a lot of the time.

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5537
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #73 on: June 05, 2017, 12:07:45 AM »
    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

     :hmm
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    Penguin

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1653

    • Offline
    Re: Springfield and RRA liquidation
    « Reply #74 on: June 05, 2017, 07:23:27 AM »
    I don't mind your asking, but I'm not going to name them.  They're still in business and a potential employer if my current employer looses it's contract.

    I will tell you that they're a non-US company based in the middle east, yearly revenue over 1 Billion in USD.

    If anyone isn't aware of it, business in the middle east can be rather dodgey at times. Or a lot of the time.

    No worries thanks. That is enought information for me thanks.
    Doobie Doobie Doo...

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.