planeflyer21 Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 http://gunssavelives.net/blog/remington-opts-to-stay-in-new-york-state-expand-operations-after-getting-80m-govt-contract/# Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unforgiven Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Money trumps principals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLKSHEEP Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Money trumps principals. EXACTLY!, those big conglomerates don't give a fuk about nothing but $$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imschur Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 As I keep repeating. Fleeing is not the answer. It's a short term solution that will hurt us down the road and make the other side stronger. Everybody needs to stand up and fight.The industry, the sport and the 2A will not survive based on a few states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrtmasp Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 As I keep repeating. Fleeing is not the answer. It's a short term solution that will hurt us down the road and make the other side stronger. Everybody needs to stand up and fight.The industry, the sport and the 2A will not survive based on a few states. Well stated. Not every gun and gun assessory manufacturer can take refuge in pro-gun states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 The Remington Ilion facility is like a large town. Or a small city. No way in hell they're moving thousands and thousands of workers, their families, all the equipment and tooling, etc. I seem to remember saying something about those companies with major military contracts would stay put. Colt lost, is probably moving. Remington won and will stay. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 As I keep repeating. Fleeing is not the answer. It's a short term solution that will hurt us down the road and make the other side stronger. Everybody needs to stand up and fight.The industry, the sport and the 2A will not survive based on a few states. Sorry to disagree but leaving is fighting and it shows the people of that state that if you vote in people who will pass draconian laws the state suffers, on the other hand by staying they encourage these asswipe law makers who do not seem to grasp the meaning of their sworn oaths. sadly just another example of all that is wrong with this country GREED! .....it is like a virus.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 I do agree with Magwa but Big R will never move. The only problem with moving is when things get bad in the state they left, the majority voters move to the free states...and start complaining about stuff like freedom. Look at Colorado. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasyEJL Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Well stated. Not every gun and gun assessory manufacturer can take refuge in pro-gun states. why not? they can't sell their most of their products any longer in the state they are located in. Why not move to a state where you can have local support and purchases? companies move all the time for dumber reasons. Its not "cutting and running" its reducing your transportation and distribution costs, and not continuing to allow part of your income go to a government system that thinks your product is murderous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imschur Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 Here's how I see see it. There is two parts. In many cases there are reps in the districts who will vote pro gun because their voters work for these companies which also support a lot of the local economy. Thats why even some Democrats will vote pro gun despite party pressure. They like their jobs. The other part is the funding for lobbying, elections, court battles etc. While gun owners contribute to these causes it's not much. It's the folks who profit who spend the most on these causes. I was reading that the shooting industry brings 1.4 billion dollars to the CT economy. While I cant fathom that it is what it is. This is why we will have the mother of court battles here and CT might be the Alamo for the Second Amendment. Without big money in states from the gun industry this shit can spread like cancer at a rapid pace. We will lose the majority in the house from the loss of the once pro gun or even middle of the road representatives. No path back. Remington once called CT home. They were a massive part of the Bridgport and CT economy. About 40 years ago they left the state. That timing coincides directly with the anti rise to power here that has never left. Governor Dannel Malloy stated he did not care about the impact of the legislation on the CT economy. He was only concerned with public safety. Meaning - we will just raise everyone's taxes to make up for it. jmho and I hope Im wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unforgiven Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 It's about money,why stay and feed coffer to a governor who is aganist you.If it was my business I'd move to where I was repected and support the infrastructure that supports me.JMO.If that didn't encorage the people to squeez legislature to change thier tune for the loss of revenue then why stay.If the people in the home state can't have or use the products you make what the point.I still like the way LWRC,MagPul and others have handeled the situation.Legislators had a chance to re-think thier position and did not fuk'um.Just my 2 mags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 As I keep repeating. Fleeing is not the answer. It's a short term solution that will hurt us down the road and make the other side stronger. Everybody needs to stand up and fight.The industry, the sport and the 2A will not survive based on a few states. I did read the whole thread, but I beg to differ, on this point. The counter-point is this is clearly true, so it does go both ways. The industry, the sport and the 2A can certainly disappear, just based on a few states... Therefore, the industry, the sport and the 2A can certainly survive - just based on a few different states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Doubt the laws will be reversed even if all the firearms manufacturers left ,but might make others think ,maybe we can get some of the business back if we change. The prospects of jobs to help there economy's may change they way they look at it . Then again , I don't see many of the assholes worrying about jobs much , just how to spend all the tax payers money they can, as fast as they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big eddie Posted April 18, 2013 Report Share Posted April 18, 2013 Its all about the dollar! GREED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unforgiven Posted April 18, 2013 Report Share Posted April 18, 2013 It's also about foisting thier personal views on the general population.I don't need someone telling me what's good for me.Fuk'um in the neck with a dull rusty butter knife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaDuce Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) The real truth is that we've become a country who is very picky about what liberties to respect. If you only respect the ones you like, you create an open door that will lead to the loss of all the liberties you DO like. Janet Reno put it perfectly by saying that if the constitution bleeds, we can kill it. As long as the American people pick and choose what liberties to respect and fight for, this degradation of all our liberties will continue until there's nothing left to destroy. America is full of people who were never taught self-control or given a good education and these are most the people voting. No one in the world of adults learns these traits willingly. That means we have a huge population of people who are little more then wild animals. You can't get people like this to treat others as they wish to be treated. What this means is that this part of American culture has to disappear (as in, go to other countries or die) or some world event has to force everyone to get it (in other words, a miracle) for there to be even a chance of our liberties being restored. There is no real chance for a happy outcome no matter what we do. Either we are going to loose our freedom or allot of Americans are going to die. Technically there's a possibility that something can happen that forces the American people to get it but this possibility is extremely remote. One of the three is inevitable. What does this have to do with Remington's choice to stay? Absolutely nothing at all. And that's exactly the point. Remington's behavior has nothing to do with the problem. Edited April 21, 2013 by MaDuce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 ^^^^ You hit that out of the park. We should have only a few laws nationwide. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrtmasp Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 If I were a business owner in the firearms industry and it was financially beneficial in a number of important areas to relocate than I would do so. However, leaving a state based on political pressure is not the answer. I think an important point is how large is the supporting populace? Is the local legislature and/or a certain number of political hacks making things unbearable? Basically, how strong is the opposition because so many supportive citizens are being forgotten about and matter. Here in MA, fighting gun legislation is an uphill battle nearly every time. However, a few nationally recognized companies like Smith & Wesson and Troy Industries have thrived. I wish this were a longer list and I'm sure I might be leaving out some more but it is what it is at this point. I just don't think consolidating these companies in certain states is as beneficial as it seems. The fight still needs to be maintained in states like mine. If companies move and opinions flex further left than legislation will likely only worsen and this could impact bordering states over time. I see this in other areas, beyond gun control, and it's a discouraging pattern. A gripe of mine, as a MA resident, is residing in a smaller more restrictive gun market state that a lot of companies can't be bothered with. Excellent firearms companies like Kimber don't want to make a bigger effort to move sales into "Taxachusetts" because of the obstacles that are met. Obstacles that can be worked around for a company like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgecrusher Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 If I were a business owner in the firearms industry and it was financially beneficial in a number of important areas to relocate than I would do so. However, leaving a state based on political pressure is not the answer. I think an important point is how large is the supporting populace? Is the local legislature and/or a certain number of political hacks making things unbearable? Basically, how strong is the opposition because so many supportive citizens are being forgotten about and matter. Here in MA, fighting gun legislation is an uphill battle nearly every time. However, a few nationally recognized companies like Smith & Wesson and Troy Industries have thrived. I wish this were a longer list and I'm sure I might be leaving out some more but it is what it is at this point. I just don't think consolidating these companies in certain states is as beneficial as it seems. The fight still needs to be maintained in states like mine. If companies move and opinions flex further left than legislation will likely only worsen and this could impact bordering states over time. I see this in other areas, beyond gun control, and it's a discouraging pattern. A gripe of mine, as a MA resident, is residing in a smaller more restrictive gun market state that a lot of companies can't be bothered with. Excellent firearms companies like Kimber don't want to make a bigger effort to move sales into "Taxachusetts" because of the obstacles that are met. Obstacles that can be worked around for a company like this. I agree with this. Let's add YHM, in Florence, and Savage Arms here in Westfield. It does surprise me that we have such good firarm companies that haven't left amid this states ridiculous laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.