Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
F3SS

Gun makers refuse LEO sales

34 posts in this topic

Thats fine then. So when larger, more influencial corporations such as banks and such take actions that collapse the economy if certain political decisions are made, that will be ok too, right? For instance, if, say, a certain person is elected, they'll raise interest rates sky high so no one can take out a loan? Or they'll start charging hundreds of dollars a month in bank fees? Those are all their right as well.

Committing corporate suicide for political reasons? That's not for corporations, that's the government's game since they have taxpayers to put on the hook later and a magic printing press to inflate the balance sheet now. Banks aren't going to do what you're suggesting since there's too many good competing alternatives for customers to flock to these days. The only way corporations would shun competition is if they had government guarantees they wouldn't put themselves out of business by raising costs of doing business or refusing loans. That won't collapse the economy that'll collapse that particular bank. Beyond playing politics with money, if there's a legitimate reason that banks will raise interest rates together to a natural market-driven rate (the Keynesian punch bowl dries up), then that will start the economic recovery we've only claimed to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. And I know how much people hate that and are against it aswell. Are you for or against?

You really think a company refusing to sell the state a product, and a bank stealing tax payers money to the tune of several trillion dollars directly because of thier coruption, is the same thing? Are you high?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midway USA has joined the list. They are a VERY large supplier / distributer.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/midway-no-leo-mag-and-ammo-sales-where-civilian-bans-apply/

Currently, there are several parts of the country that have restrictions on civilian ownership of certain magazines or types of ammunition. Sometimes it is entire states and sometimes local municipalities pass these regulations, which I consider unconstitutional. At any rate, when we encounter these situations it has always been our policy not to sell to anyone in these areas, regardless of what law enforcement or government credentials they offer up. If the laws change and all law abiding citizens can buy these products we would be happy to sell to Law Enforcement, but not before then. Thanks for taking the time to be involved. I wish all firearms would follow your lead.

On Behalf of Larry, Thanks For Your Business,

Eric Ellingson

Contact Center Supervisor

MidwayUSA

NRA Endowment Member

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think a company refusing to sell the state a product, and a bank stealing tax payers money to the tune of several trillion dollars directly because of thier coruption, is the same thing? Are you high?

I think that refusing to sell ammo to LEO is a political move to try to pressure them into changing back the laws, and if its OK to do that, then it'd be ok for banks and large corporations to also make decisions which may adversely affect you or the country in order to pressure the government to pass certain laws that they want.

Banks breaking the law is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is largely influencial organizations taking lawful action to influence politics. It just seems to me that people are all against corporations and banks putting pressure on political decisions when the pressure works against people. At that point, the evil and vile banks and corporations should stay out of politics. BUT, as soon as other companies put pressure on political decisions that some people do believe in, then they're championed as heros.

Now, I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I'm just pointing it out and looking for consistency. Personally, I find the whole issue to be a large grey area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the banks were holding the govt. to ransom because they were infringing on the rights of everyday citizens, then it would be a fair comparison. IMO it would more likely be the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that refusing to sell ammo to LEO is a political move to try to pressure them into changing back the laws, and if its OK to do that

When Sherrifs have started to be replaced because of there views then the game changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Sherrifs have started to be replaced because of there views then the game changed.

Just to play devils advocate, what would you do with someone who's supposed to enforce the law, whether they agree with it or not, but has said they would refuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some corporations have so much clout and power now that states bend over backwards to give them tax breaks and other benefits to lure them and the jobs they bring in. The end result is http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=242848. I know our Governor Branstad and the state gave hundreds of millions in tax breaks to lure the Eygyptian company Orascom in to build a 1.4 billion dollar fertilizer plant that will employ 165 people. http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/5701/fertilizer-plant-project-lands-largest-tax-incentive-package-in-iowa-history. One of their subsidiaries is being investigated for tax fraud, however. Heck they even bought one of our bigger constuction companies to build it.

Not saying that it is a bad thing, but increasingly companies are getting a better tax break than the average citizen and it is the average joe that is getting stuck with the bill.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to play devils advocate, what would you do with someone who's supposed to enforce the law, whether they agree with it or not, but has said they would refuse?

If they were in compliance with State Law I would 100% support them.

IMO alot of whats happening in America right now is a big push by the Federal Govmnt to intercede into State Laws that have been around since there State Constitutions were written. Now I will admit they wrote themselves in an Amendment that gives some precedent to be able to do this but that was post Civil War. Anything thats been done post Civil War unfortunately has a minority that has seethed over this issue for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.