From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: CLINTON NEW TEXT: GUN CONTROL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:28:42 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <BuDFsF.6u1@medar.com> jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes:
[ ... ]
>What is it Bill Ruger has done?  I'm especially curious being as I've
>always been a Ruger (product) fan.  But this could change *real* *quick*.

Here's my favorite bit of past eloquence on the subject:
--------------------------------------------------------
>Path: dg-rtp!dgcad!amdcad!sun!exodus!newstop!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ctbilbo!ray
>From: ray@ctbilbo.UUCP (Ray Ward)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Minority Opinion on Bill Ruger
>Keywords: Ruger boycott
>Message-ID: <172@ctbilbo.UUCP>
>Date: 22 Mar 91 21:40:44 GMT
>References: <31730@mimsy.umd.edu>
>Lines: 100
>
>
>
>In article <31730@mimsy.umd.edu>, cassman@athena.mit.edu (Baby Killer) writes:
>> From: rrubert@netman.intel.com (Rod Rubert fm1-56 (916)351-????)
>> in Article 7732 (13 more) in rec.guns:
>> #   In the middle of the Ruger bashing that has gone on
>> # here, I would like to present an opposing opinion. As
>> [stuff deleted]
>> #   I know the dangers of compromise. I know that a 15rnd mag ban
>> # is violating my rights. But Bill Ruger is out there doing something.
>
>Sarah Brady is also out there doing something.  So is Saddam Hussein.
>So what is Bill Ruger doing?  When the anti-"assault weapon" hysteria
>was at its height, Bill Ruger advocated banning ammunition magazines
>that held 15 or more cartridges.  To make sure he wasn't alone, he
>pressured the major firearms industry group, SAAMI, to take the same
>stand.  Why?
>
>Ruger claimed that the mood in Congress was irresistible:  to ban the
>domestic manufacture of semi-automatic ( one shot for each pull on the
>trigger ) firearms.  The only way to stop this, he claimed, was to pass
>instead a less damaging ban on something less essential:  high-capacity
>magazines.
>
>Even if you believe his claims, Ruger was wrong, he was a fool, and he 
>greatly damaged those of us who were defending the Second Amendment and 
>the inalienable right it defends.  
>
>Ruger was wrong:  Congress did not ban semi-autos.  Congress did not even 
>ban "high-capacity" magazines.  Not even a bill was passed, much less
>signed into law by the President.  After the political damage of the
>semi-auto import ban, the administration changed course.  So the "compromise"
>Ruger offered was not needed.
>
>Ruger was a fool.  There was nothing to compromise about.  It wasn't a
>mattter of, "Look, I want all of THIS and you want all of THAT -- we can't
>both get all we want, so we'll compromise and each get SOME of what
>we want."  Instead, the anti-gun fascists made the proposal, "Look,
>you have something I don't want you to have, so I'm going to take it 
>away from you, because I'm bigger than you are."  This wasn't a negotiation,
>it was a fight.  Ruger made the classic mistake of trying to appease an
>aggressor -- whether foreign or domestic.  He was fool enough to believe
>that if you keep throwing your children to the wolves, eventually the
>wolves will turn into vegetarians.  (not mine, another's phrase)
>
>Ruger damaged our efforts to defend our rights.  His public defection,
>and that of SAMMI, made the fascists' case.  They could say, "See, even
>the monsters that make these killing machines can't find any defense
>for ugly, cop-killing assault weapons!"  So why not ban them?  Especially
>convincing to congresscritters with all the principles and backbone of
>a soggy Washington Post poll.  It was also demoralizing:  some on our
>side said, "Well, if Bill Ruger thinks we have to lose something to save
>anything, maybe we should."  
>
>A closer examination of Ruger's proposal reveals his true intent.
>The magazines that would be banned -- and hence the guns that used them --
>were not manufactured by Ruger.  They were manufactured by his competition.
>Ruger was losing market share to handguns and semi-autos that had, among
>other advantages, larger magazine capacities.  Ruger wasn't proposing
>throwing his own children to the wolves, he wanted to throw someone else's 
>children to the wolves.
>
>What Ruger intended was make more money, safeguard his product line, and 
>get some free publicity at the expense of his competition.  That he
>had to sacrifice essential liberties of the American people meant nothing
>to him.  Maybe not nothing, but certainly less than the money.  
>
>To this day, with the hysteria no longer at high tide, he has not reversed 
>his position.  If his true aim had been the protection of our rights, he
>would have gone public with a reversal of his position, explaining why 
>he had been well-intentioned, but wrong.  As soon as the immediate danger
>had passed.
>
>> # I cannot fault him for that. I will buy his products. 
>
>I can.  I will not buy his products.  His conduct -- attempting venal
>gain at the expense of hard-won liberties, all the while wrapping himself
>in the flag -- is beneath contempt.
>
>> # The mini-14/30 are the only options in their class in Kalifornia.
>
>And why is that?  Do you intend to reward the very person who helped
>create this sorry state of affairs?  Maybe you really don't deserve the
>freedoms you do have.  ( not that I agree with your evaluation... )
>
>> I agree that Mr. Ruger has not done anything that is seriously anti-RKBA
>> and that his actions/words are not nearly enough to boycott his products.
>
>I would like to hear what you think WOULD be serious enough for a boycott.
>
>A boycott is the most appropriate consequence for his attempted money-grab.
>Yes, he is hurting some.  Our boycott of Mossberg has had encouraging
>results.  If the boycott against Ruger spreads and hurts him still more,
>perhaps he will not be so quick to betray us in the future.
>
>-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Ray Ward                                          Email:  uunet!ctbilbo!ray  
>Voice:  (214) 991-8338x226, (800) 331-7032        Fax  :  (214) 991-8968     
>=-=-=-=-  There _are_ simple answers, just no _easy_ ones. -- R.R. -=-=-=-=
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns