[flashbunny]

Wrong. They got out of the boston agreement. Their take on the HUD agreement, but their take on it is that 'there is a republican in office now so it will just go away'. Nothing goes away with the government. Unless it is struck down, president hillary can resurrect it at will. S&W tries to spin this, but the truth still is that the worst agreement, the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

[Space Wrangler]

the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

I there take is more along the lines of "there's a republican in office now, and if even if someone else takes it up, we will we argue in court that we aren't responsible for it". It does our cause no good at all to try and run a company out of business for the sins of it's former owners. The gun industry learned a valuable lesson out of all this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[epow]

. S&W tries to spin this, but the truth still is that the worst agreement, the HUD agreement, still is legally binding.

SO FREAKIN WHAT??? Why should we punish the new ownership just because the old owners were cowardly fools? And don't refer me to Beezlebub's posts, his reasoning makes no sense either.

There is no sensible reason not to buy from S&W unless you just have a hard on for the brand name. I know some shooters who do, just like some Ford people hate Chevy no matter what, and vice versa. I suspect the people who are still advocating a boycott are locked into that same kind of mindset.

If the new owners make some stupid new deal with the devil, then I'll help you guys boycott them out of business. But not until then.