I understand Ruger's attempt to be pragmatic, but I think it backfired quite a bit. Not just in terms of the reaction from gun owners, but in the way that gun controllers repeatedly shoved in our faces the rhetoric that "even gun manufacturers support gun control"...as if they're doing it out of the goods of their hearts (as opposed to concern for their businesses).
Anyway, there's a bit of a darker dimension as well...I dunno if you guys have heard, but there is some evidence (I'll have to find the article again) that Ruger and Colt were also supporters of the 1989 Assault Weapons Importation Ban and urged President Bush (H.W., not W.) to sign it. And that was almost entirely their own initiative; they saw it as an opportunity to remove their competition from Norinco, H&K, Steyr, etc. in the marketplace for military-style weapons. Like everyone else, they didn't anticipate the switch to "post-ban" models of those weapons.
I do realize that we can't necessarily expect commercial enterprises such as gun manufacturers to value 2nd Amendment principles over business. That's the nature of capitalism, and I accept that. But it's still pretty hard for me to take Ruger seriously anymore, in spite of their recent relaxation of attitudes. After all, there have been manufacturers such as Barrett that have shown a willingness to do what Ruger didn't.
|