What difference does it make, Dan?

Truth is, most Europeans are fine and dandy with restricted gun rights. If not, they can vote in politicians who will expand them if that’s what they want. Or move to a place with more expansive gun rights if it’s that important to them. It’s not our monkey or our circus.

It’s a silly question with no real point.

Why is it so hard to answer such a simple question.

No, they don't. In some of those countries they also don't have the same level of freedom of speech, due process, freedom of religion, etc.
That's exactly why I said earlier when you go down this road you can't confine it to firearms. You're doing the exact same thing regardless of what you buy from those countries. The point you're trying to make simply isn't valid.

We live in the greatest country in the world. Based on your argument we should buy nothing imported period. We are superior. Period. Our current president is working hard to bring jobs back to America and succeeding. The constitution protects our rights if they ever actually succeed in changing that they will be faced with a civil war. Win or lose it will happen.

Now I’ve went way off on a tangent but your argument has been trumped for two pages. Time to change The argument as you do. I’m not sure why social/political/ethical threads wind up in this section anyway. Arguably this thread could have been made about many products.

Here are my original comments...

"As staunch as some appear when it comes to defending their rights to own firearms, many of these same people pay absolutely no attention to the rights of the people in some foreign country who manufactured their most prized firearm. In fact, some even take pride in distancing themselves from products made by American companies, some of which have been in existence for over a century."

Of course we purchase products, such as shoes and clothing, that were made outside the US by people who don't enjoy the same rights that we do. However, as far as I know these same people can freely purchase and own the products that leave the factory. On the other hand, are we not hypocrites when we become so inflamed when some politician suggests taking away a certain type of firearm, and yet the person who made it cannot freely purchase it themselves? When I purchase a firearm that was made in the US, I know I'm buying something the person who made it can purchase and own as well.

No, we are not hypocrites. The right to keep and bear arms is written into our Constitution. Those countries don’t have such a right written into their laws.

Their laws are their issue, not ours.

Your so-called “point” is stupid.

And you wasted all this time reading all my comments just to share that with me. Maybe I'm supposed to be somehow impressed.

But then, you do that a lot NP. Maybe I really should be impressed by all your effort.

Most electronics are made in China these days, computers, TVs, radios, etc...and while most Chinese could potentially buy these items (most couldn’t afford to), the Chinese govt prevents the free exchange of ideas on the internet, has govt control tv programming and radio broadcasts, and has no freedom of speech (you can be sent to jail or die for openly saying things anti-the communist regime), no freedom of assembly (just look at what’s happening in Hong Kong and what has happened in Tienamen sq for drastic examples), has no freedom of press (all state run), and no freedom of religion (religious members are sent to ‘re-education camps’ or just vanished a la Clinton style).

Does that prevent you from buying anything electronic made in China? Doubt it

Dan wants to argue

I posted this earlier...

He gives AF for some reason what someone 3k miles away can or can’t do

Dan, we got this constitution thing going on over here

That’s it, look no further

Dont like it, go on a crusade to save them

I'm not sure what you've seen that I haven't, but the people I've seen here talking about not buying some American made firearms reference poor quality, not pride in refusing to buy American in general. Remington is a perfect example. I personally won't buy a new Remington because of QC issues they've had over the past several years. The fact is they've developed a reputation for putting out substandard products. Should we just bend over and take it because they're made here? I won't and I would bet you won't either. Refusing to buy something because something else is better quality, better value, or has features the other doesn't have is not hypocritical by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is getting pissed over a politician trying to take away a type of gun if the person who made it can't buy one.
As far as the part highlighted in red, you might want to research the laws in the state where your beloved Winchesters are made, along with others. It was referenced by another poster. If you don't think that's hypocritical but the other is, I don't know what to tell you.

Are there no rifles made in the US that offer the quality and features at the price point you prefer?

Both my Browning A-bolt and Weatherby Vanguard are excellent quality and were both made in Japan. However, I continue to give a first look at rifles made in the US before adding one to my collection.

Dan, you have avoided answering my posts

Why?

I’ll answer it for you...

We have a constitution unlike any other

You want to argue about some bs from some people 3k miles away

Why?

Have you checked into the gun laws in Japan? Here is a snippet of one article describing them:

"If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam."

Does this or does it not put you dead center in your own crosshairs? Here is a link to the article, it has some very good information.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun...completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10

Here are the regulations in Finland. As you can see, people in Finland (Tikka) actually have more gun rights than people in Japan (Browning and Weatherby Vanguard).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Finland

Thankfully we do have the Constitution on our side, at least until the SCOTUS swings the other way.

Here's another way to view the issue. What if the US military stopped buying firearms from domestic producers and instead purchased them from only foreign sources, citing the same reasons (better quality, value, etc.) What would be the impact on our military's ability to sustain itself on the battlefield once the dynamics change. In like fashion, what is the impact on our ability to purchase firearms domestically under the Second Amendment when we focus more attention and support on companies and nations that don't share our basic rights. What happens when there are no US-based gun makers to defend the Second Amendment? Or do you really believe those foreign companies are going to run to our aid when the Supreme Court swings heavily to the left?

Ours is a game of chess where the move you make now will make or break the more important ones that are sure to come later.

I see where this is going now. Your money, is your vote. If you give it to American gun makers, who lobby just like every other big company, it puts them in a better position. Their interests are the same as ours.

I will answer your “what if’s”...

The best I can

Your whole argument is to pretend Americans don’t support American made guns, right?

You have allowed this whole Tikka deal to make it your reality

Do i believe they make a quality product...YES

But you basically asked intially if foreigners have the same rights

Take a real deep breath....

Did you do that?

No, they don’t

We were fortunate enough to have that document written for us

Chase that rabbit until you can’t anymore

What if, what if, what if, what if...

What if the sun rises in the west tomorrow?

Other than arguing, that’s it.

So, first, I will answer your OP question. No, Dan, most of the people who make my guns do not enjoy the same firearms rights that I do, AND THAT INCLUDES THOSE THAT WERE MADE IN THE US!

I have better firearms rights than you do right now. MO is a Constitutional Carry state. Is TX? Gun buster signs carry no rule of law here and we don't have a 30.06 or 30.07 law. Suppressors are not illegal here (although I seem to recall that TX has since done away with that stupid law, I have not confirmed that).

In terms of your statement above, there are quite a few US based firearms manufacturers who make weapons that their employees cannot legally purchase, or have to go through rigorous permitting in order to own. Kimber handguns, Bushmaster rifles, Most Smith & Wesson handguns and their M&P rifles, the list goes on and on.

To call people hypocrites while not even acknowledging your own hypocrisy is quite a bit of mental gymnastics. I do my best to help those in oppressive states to not have to deal with Federal pressure as well. I also fight like hell to make sure my state stays right where it is. But ultimately, I just won't live in a state, or country, that feels it is OK to ignore certain rights, and that is much more powerful than whether I periodically purchase a product from them.

I'm convinced the Second Amendment will be tested like never before in the not too distant future. What a lot of people don't realize is the court was once just one vote away from deciding the Second Amendment only guaranteed the rights of state militias to bear arms. With all that's happening with firearms being used to kill innocent people today, I have zero expectation that foreign gun makers and their governments are going to take our side of the future debate.

Except that they aren't. Do your remember Smith & Wesson? How about Springfield Armory? They will gladly throw their consumers under the bus if it is convenient for them.

As for the military firearms argument, that is a strawman. We will always have our arms produced here in the US, because it is a national security issue. However, a good portion of our military's small arms are already made here in the US by FOREIGN gun manufacturers. FN-Herstal is a Belgian company. Up until recently the Beretta M-9 was the military's side arm. Now it is the Sig-Sauer M17. Beretta is Italian and Sig is a Swiss/German company. Yes, all of them have US headquarters and all of the guns produced are done so on US soil, but if you think the money is staying in the US, you are deluding yourself. The reason that all of these foreign firearms manufacturers exist in the first place is to supply the various militaries with arms. The civilian market is just a bonus to them.

So again, as a CAPITALIST, I will spend my money on the product that best suits my needs and provides the best value for my $.

Geez

Every clay pidgeon Dan has thrown has been dusted, and this still goes on?

This is the same guy that said supersonic .22 lr ammo was so fast it skipped the rifling in the barrel, making it unstable. So there's that...

As the law permits today.

Who's law?

The U.S Federal government law? The State of Texas law? Or some foreign government's law you are so concerned about.

I do indeed remmeber springfield armory. Please refresh my memory on smith and wesson?

This train wreck has been fun to watch the past few days

Dan if Nogalus Prairie is telling you that your argument is stupid then you may want to evaluate. I typically put your arguments in the same category.