So the writing was on the wall in the 1990s. Clinton was ushering an irreversible gun control regime. Because of the magazine size limits. 1911s got a boost in popularity because it was the best of the sub-10 round guns available. Glock responded with baby Glocks to have something to sell to the lucrative civilian market while they still could. Colt and HK stressed their links to military and law enforcement customer, alienating regular consumers, but who cares about them, they would be disarmed sooner rather than later and not a factor. S&W took another path conceding to the Clinton administration alligator. After seeing what the legal profession did to the tobacco industry, Smith didn't want that to happen to them so made a deal to avoid the liability, also pissing off us regular gun owners.
That was then.
What a difference 20 years makes. A dozen Vermont-Carry states. The cusp of realizing a rights-friendly Supreme Court. If not for a few billionaires you wouldn't even hear from the gun banners.
Can you tell I am low on blog fodder ideas to just spit out a history paragraph? It's still a wonder.
Do you think it is due to complacency on their part, education on 'our' part, something else, or a mixture of all 3?
ReplyDeleteEven without our educating, people would notice that guns are fun, some bad guys need shooting and might need shooting by them and the gun controllers over promised on the results they expected.
ReplyDeleteIn the grand scheme of things, our boosting might be shouting down the well for all the good it is doing and people would have a positive outlook with or without us. It's possible. Maybe we don't move the needle.
I think we do. And you only needed to really move it a point or two to swing the balance.
Yep, 20 years makes a BIG difference, and a it's nice to be reminded of that on occasion...
ReplyDelete