What happens when we give an inch

[oneshot]

(Mods, I'd like to post this in a forum where it can be seen by non-members if it's alright by you.)

 

http://www.thegunzon...a/papabill.html

 

He [Ruger] contended that the public's problem was with "firepower," which could be resolved by eliminating high capacity mags.

 

I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered, but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't to eliminate "firepower" but "firearms."

 

Bill finally said, "Neal, you're being very negative about it." He got angry, then said "Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will." And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined "regulation" of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for either rifles or pistols.

 

I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Bush administration's proposal to ban high-cap mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that "the Bush administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns."

 

Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the Second Amendment.

Five years later William B. Ruger Sr.'s model legislation served as the basis of the "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" section of the Clinton Administration's "Crime Bill," save one major detail… the 15-round capacity had been dropped to 10-rounds by the time it had passed and been signed into Law on 13 September 1994! (The antigunners not only stuck it to "us," but stuck it to their Quisling as well.)

 

Why were we not surprised?!

[anonymous too]

Ever notice how many cool guns Ruger introduced almost immediately after Bill Ruger died and how much more successful that company has become?

[ike]

Ever notice how they seem to have " Lawyer design" built into them ? Super stiff triggers on it's pistols. And the loaded chamber indicator on the LC9 warnings stamped everywhere..Good guns ,but cut back on trying to make them foolproof a little

[drdoom]

Never really warmed up to Ruger, with the exception of the MK II and III series, they just never struck me as good quality.

[C0untZer0]

I can't blame Ruger for the lawer guns. California is the home of the insane, and the jagwad judges out there are letting a lawsuit go forward against Glock. The lawsuit stems from a police officer who left his duty sidearm in the back seat where his kid could get it. The child also should have been in a child seat, and buckled in - but he wasn't. The child pulled the trigger on the Glock and shot his father in the back paralyzing him. Now the father is suing Glock claiming that the accident wouldn't have happened if the gun had more safety devices: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5884833-Judge-allows-paralyzed-cop-to-sue-Glock/ I cannot blame Ruger for the attorney design & verbiage of their guns.

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.

[moparcardave]

Love the pre warning Rugers but gave them up when they put the warnings all over them.

[colt-45]

Love the pre warning Rugers but gave them up when they put the warnings all over them.

+1

[colt-45]

I can't blame Ruger for the lawer guns. California is the home of the insane, and the jagwad judges out there are letting a lawsuit go forward against Glock. The lawsuit stems from a police officer who left his duty sidearm in the back seat where his kid could get it. The child also should have been in a child seat, and buckled in - but he wasn't. The child pulled the trigger on the Glock and shot his father in the back paralyzing him. Now the father is suing Glock claiming that the accident wouldn't have happened if the gun had more safety devices: http://www.policeone...p-to-sue-Glock/ I cannot blame Ruger for the attorney design & verbiage of their guns.

The California Second Court of Appeal said Tuesday a jury could conclude a grip safety strong enough to withstand a 3 year-old's grasp "would minimize the risk of accidental discharge without undermining performance," and in a 3-0 ruling, allowed the case to continue.

i'd turn around and sue the cop for being a stupid parent. how can they hold glock reasonable for what people do with them. that's like me suing the gov Quinn cause i'm pour.

[tms119]

This is the same as if a parent were to leave a gun on the kitchen table and then be completely surprised that their child picked up the gun and fired it....why the heck would he just leave it sitting somewhere unsecured?

 

Edit: speaking of Ruger...I own a lc9 and is a very nice gun, but agree that certain features I could do without....but everybody has got to love their gp100 (.357) series....dang things are built like tanks and i feel are100% reliable....plus could be used like a club if you run out of ammo lol.