I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Saturday, February 23, 2013

What’s good for the goose

Is good for the gander.  At least according to the list of companies on this web site.  http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

The subject is firearms and here is a policy quote from the 1st manufacturer/supplier on the list.

If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction”.

At the risk of using up my quota of clichés for the day it strikes me as both “cutting off your nose to spite your face and “sticking to your guns”.   While I don’t see Remington or Smith & Wesson on the list, I do see 37 for profit companies that are willing to put principle over profit just as the OWS people advocated.


  1. I don't think that I agree with these companies, however I do like the connection to OWS.

  2. I'm sure there's plenty of calculated profit to go with that principle. Rallying your base and serving as warning to other states/municipalities considering similar limits chief among them.

    Show me a guns/ammo manufacturer who has voluntarily shown even hinted at genuine reflection post Newtown on the value-vs-cost of the assault products they offer and I will show you principle over profit.