Good grief, you’d have to boycott everything sold in Kalifornia and purchased by anyone employed by any state or municipal agency. What are you going to buy or eat if that is really your standard?

The logic of this so-called Kimber boycott is juvenile at best, and, well, just downright foolish.

No, your logic is what’s foolish. I don’t have to boycott everything sold in California to be consistent. I only have to boycott companies who sell things to “only ones” in CA but are prohibited from selling the same product to its peaceful citizens.

Since when did the Kalifornia Police become the makers of the Kalifornia Oppressive Regime political policy.

since they took one of their rifles to a press release and said see, look how scary these are.

I understand you’d like to boycott Kimber because they – horror of horrors – sell guns to Kalifornia Police Departments. (And worse, these are 1911′s with a special SIS marking on the handle.) I also understand that you equate the Police Departments to Kalifornia Oppressive Regime. Now that’s a leap I’m not willing to make. Since when did the Kalifornia Police become the makers of the Kalifornia Oppressive Regime political policy. (Okay, let’s forget about New Orleans for now.)

Good grief, you’d have to boycott everything sold in Kalifornia and purchased by anyone employed by any state or municipal agency. What are you going to buy or eat if that is really your standard?

The logic of this so-called Kimber boycott is juvenile at best, and, well, just downright foolish.

The next question; can they make enough bucks to avoid layoffs, lower production and even bankruptcy with the sale of only SIS pistols to that agency?

Because if the law enforcement business won’t provide them with the revenue they are accustomed to and need to remain viable, how intelligent or capitalistic is it to alienate their major customer base with the proof of their belief that a) the customer base is too ignorant to be incensed at aid to an enemy of their liberty,and b) the company,itself, agrees that non-LEO citizens are not entitled to the same level of liberty aiding and defensively effective tools as are the agents of the entity trying to strip the citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and inalienable rights?

Leaving out the morality aspect of it, if they are trying to “make a buck” they may well end up losing many more than they make.

So, not only is their stance wrong it is economically stupid. Unless, of course we are more stupid and continue to buy their wares. Which is a possibility.

I still will not buy anything made by S&W. I own one, a very fine firearm, I will never sell it, trade it or let anyone else shoot it. Because I don’t want to do anything that will aid S&W. Yeah, I know they recanted and Tompson (Tomkins?) sold them to an American concern. I would rather have seen them boycotted so strenuously that there would have been no value to entice a prospective buyer. Now, we would be talking effective clout for when the next company hurt us and relied on recouping a fortune during a sell-off. Much better they lose all, or that the subsequent owner lost all. That would put one Hell of a damper on “make a buck and screw our main customers” process.

just my view. Can you tell, I don’t tolerate enemies of my liberty or their assistants well?

The thing that was most on target? Ken’s analogy of Kimber enabling an abusive boyfriend!

What say you? Should I accept that gun manufacturers should want to make a buck? Or not?

Accept it. They’re businesses, not political advocacy groups. It’s great when a gun manufacturer chooses to refuse to sell to cops where civilians can’t buy, but when they do they are going above and beyond.

I think there’s a difference between just selling to police on the open market, and treating law enforcement and civilians differently.

Actully here in Mass that distinction IS made.
http://www.fsguns.com/fsg_information.html
I’d say at least half the police here in Mass carry one Glock or another (Boston PD carries G19 IIRC) yet only guns that were sold before Mass banned them in ’94 are legal to be sold by Dealers, and I’ve read of a few people who got cracked frames and ended up just getting a check from Glock as the Mass AG gave them such a hard time about shipping a replacement frame into the state that they just gave fair market value to the customer and cut them loose.

Glock did go through the trouble of getting their guns approved for Mass sale, but the AG screwed them after the first shipments were sold and ordered dealers to buy back the guns and return them to Glock. More information here:
http://www.fsguns.com/glocks.html

I wouldn’t be suprised if Glock had a similar story with Chicago and California.

Kimber is a commercial company, interested in making money. If that desire, coupled with whatever passes as their business ethics, indicates they should cater to organizations intent on disarming and disbarring people from their Constitutionally-protected rights, then they are definitely on the field to make a buck.

That said, we, as consumers, have the right to buy from whomever we so desire, for whatever motivations we desire, and I have a hard time supporting a company that is, directly or indirectly, supporting another organization intent on keeping me from exercising my rights.

*shrug* I do not, personally, own a Kimber, but I have heard nothing but good things about them, and whenever I finally get around to purchasing a 1911 frame, they were on the list of possible sources… However, I do intend on voting with my dollars, insignificant though they may be.

And, yeah, it could be argued that other companies are supporting organizations who are intent on stripping me of my rights – and that would be accurate. However, those companies are not providing similar services or products that would be unavailable to me if those anti-rights organizations had their way… A small difference, granted, but an important one in the context of the situation.

I think if the police forces start finding that the only guns they can get are cheap pieces of crap or very, very expensive ones, they might start asking the governments to rethink their positions

MRS, you’re right, I’d just hope the various governments would stop their foolishness before it came down to that. It would have to be on the cheap side, though. I doubt any .gov would mind spending strong more money.

you’ll be back to writing about how cool they are

Where did I do that the first time?

Blackwater USA.

Maybe if Kimber just offers to let you blow up a car with their guns you’ll be back to writing about how cool they are.

Laughingdog, yeah. I concede the point to you on principle. My only reservation is that the reality of laying people off, cutting back on new product development, or even closing a company can motivate people to do unprincipled things. I’m not saying I would ignore the unprincipled act I’m just saying I would understand why they did it. I would still buy from someone else given a comparable product and let them know there was a price to be paid.

Damn that sucks.

Back on topic… I am fairly understanding of companies sell to repressive regimes as long as the product is primarily used for legal purposes. Should we be hard on Ford for selling cars to those same police departments? Or how about Dell/HP/Gateway/etc selling computers to them? Or Microsoft for selling software?

If states started banning Fords, Dell Computers, and Microsoft software for civilian ownership, and those companies continued to sell to the governments in those states, I’d be pretty pissed off with them as well. Hell, one reason I get pissed off with Harley Davidson is that they sell bikes to California police, knowing full well those police proceed to equip them with exhausts that violate the same state noise codes that they’ll enforce on everyone else. More importantly, there are dealers there in the state installing those illegal exhausts on those police bikes, when they know they can’t put them on the bikes of any of their other customers.

It’s not only the gun manufacturers needing to make a buck, it’s also the citizens needing a competently armed police force.

There are very few police officers that I’ve met that I would call competently armed, regardless of what brand/model they were carrying. I still loved when a group of Norfolk, VA police officers all tried to insist to me that Glocks all shoot to the left. I told them that only two things make a Glock shoot left: poor trigger technique or misaligned sights. Strangely, none of them were willing to accept my $500 bet that I could shoot their guns better than they could.

“Just not to the point of making Hi Point the sole provider to the police force.”

Actually, I’d be perfectly happy to see the California police reduced to being unarmed, like most British police, if that’s what it takes to make them finally get rid of the bulk of their gun laws.

“I’m glad you guys are finally recognizing what the sides are. It sure as hell ain’t hunters vs shooters…”

There is still an awful lot of that one floating around, and it’s a large part of the hunters that feel the need to box the rest of us into a different side by leaving us out for the wolves. There are two sides: one wants to protect all gun rights, and the other just wants to protect their own gun rights. There are too damn many hunters at my range, and where I work, that blurt out crap like “why do you even need an assault rifle”, without having a clue what kind of gun they are talking about. Along the lines of the original subject of this post, there are too damn many gun manufacturers that just keep selling guns to the same people that are trying to put them out of business.

Should we be hard on Ford for selling cars to those same police departments?

Didn’t Ford stop selling Crown Vics to departments that were suing them over fuel-tank ruptures? Is this not the same thing?

Back on topic… I am fairly understanding of companies sell to repressive regimes as long as the product is primarily used for legal purposes. Should we be hard on Ford for selling cars to those same police departments? Or how about Dell/HP/Gateway/etc selling computers to them? Or Microsoft for selling software?

I would be intolerant if General Electric, Westinghouse, or some such company, started selling ovens whose primary function was the cremation of the Jews the repressive regime had murdered.

Between those extremes we have some gray area. IMHO the guns, for the most part will be used for protection of the innocent and I won’t be as vocal about them as I would “the ovens”. But if given a choice between a company that refused to sell to them and one that did sell I would buy from one that did not sell to the repressive regime.

Barrett is a patriot. Kimber is selling out.

“Tactical”, by the way, means you use it to shoot citizens.

S & W went through some lean times and then extricated itself from the HUD agreement.

Imagine your police all carrying Lorcins.

Don’t get me wrong, Ronnie was right in what he did. They banned his guns, he dropped them. Anytime a government bans a gun, the manufacturer should drop them, if possible. Just not to the point of making Hi Point the sole provider to the police force.

Just as it is OUR right to not purchase from whomever we wish, including those companies we feel may be doing the perfectly WRONG thing.

Were I in a position to purchase a new Kimber, I would give serious consideration to giving my business to someone like STI instead – and let Kimber know exactly WHY they aren’t getting my money.

One problem. The SIS is not on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale in CA.

Kimber has 84 pistols on that list, but not the SIS. Why do they develop something for sale to CA cops that they do not offer to CA residents?

I love these guns.

But I won’t be buying another new Kimber, and I intend to tell them so.

Good post. Thanks for the heads-up.