Exodus takes a stand. Pass it on. Let’s make it a movement and make it very clear, especially to public companies like Ruger and Smith & Wesson. But not just them; remember what happened with H-S Precision and Cooper Firearms.
If we the people wish to keep our freedom, authority, and power, then we need to keep exercising it.
Stuff From Hsoi 
I disagree. If there’s a demand for these things, it’s perfectly legitimate for a manufacturer to make a product that meets that demand.
That’s a free market. That’s capitalism.
Besides, if there is a demand it will be met. If it’s not one of the existing companies, it will just be another.
I do strongly object to the government getting involved, however.
I also think there’s not really a demand for these things.
Yes it’s legit for them to make it, but it’s also legit for us to boycott it and say “we won’t buy your stuff… get the message now that if you make this, you’re going to lose a LOT of business”. Just give them fair and early warning not to consider it if they want to stay in business, especially public companies that have to answer to shareholders.
But the other part of this is that there is zero market demand. The folks that politically want it will not rush out and now buy a gun or ammo because this stuff is in place. It will not help a firearm company’s bottom line to do this. Thus why the only way to get this done is through force of law, and it’s interesting that the ones lobbying to get it made into law (apart from the usual suspects like Brady and VPC) is the company that claims to have the technology and knows that they stand to make money if the law now forces everyone to use their technology.
That’s not free market at all.
In what way does my position preclude the market forces which you and I both admire?
Recall Smith and Wesson’s fortunes after their Boston agreement. This was largely due to backlash from within the firearms community – the demand side.
This “demand” of which you speak is not present within the normal capital market players; the manufacturers have already said they don’t want to make these products, and the consumers don’t want them either or there would already be a manufacturer making these products, or preparing to.
The impetus for these new firearms would be driven wholly to meet an artificial, government imposed standard (generated in a wholly oligarchical fashion, if you’re paying attention to the process by which they’re trying to get this bill through) that exists outside of market forces. (See CAFE standards and NHTSA guidelines and the charts of F, GM, and DCX to see how that works in a different industry. Oh sorry it’s GMGMQ now because America’s largest car company trades on the PINK SHEETS now.)
My intention is to rally actual market forces (the will of the consumer) in order to defeat an exogenous non-market force. To date, the line against microstamping or smart weapons had been held because the manufacturers didn’t want to produce these things; they spoke of the difficulty or the impracticality of such weapons.
The manufacturers NEED US now in order to bolster their argument that these technologies are unwelcome. In truth, by targeting manufacturers, that helps them fight this.
Strategically, now is the time to get very loud about this, in the hope that it can be stopped before it starts. Once there’s one manufacturer (that’s all it’s going to take) making smart guns or microstamp guns, then every antigun policy group and every liberal bureaucrat will point to the existence of the technology in a production gun and start screaming “SEE!!! IT CAN BE DONE!!! YOUR OLD ARGUMENTS AND OBJECTIONS ARE NULL AND VOID!!!”
At that point, the odds of seeing ALL manufacturers forced to make all of their weapons smart, or microstampy, or both, goes through the roof, because there’s an area of the country already operating that way.
This is the place to take a stand, if you’re going to bother, and such a stand takes place well within the perimeter of traditional capitalism – even in the face of what is no longer a real capital market by anyone’s measure.
Or did I misunderstand, and you want a microstampy smart gun?
To be clear … my position is that in a free market … if people want them, they will be made. If they don’t, they won’t. Boycotts won’t work if the demand is there.
I also think that if someone wants a “microstampy smart gun”, that it’s really of no concern to me.
It’s only when mandates come down that require all my guns to be of the “microstampy” and/or “smart” variety that I object.
Heard this before?
“Guns don’t kill people, people do.”
Well, I say:
“Technology doesn’t erode rights, people do.”
“To be clear … my position is that in a free market … if people want them, they will be made. If they don’t, they won’t.”
Let me be equally clear. This is not a free market if the government can demand that guns that people do not want MUST be made. That’s precisely what’s on the table.
This can quickly become a situation wherein guns that people want become legally unavailable, if allowed to continue.
Do you want to sit on your hands until that day arrives, or do you want to take a relatively minor and easy stand now?
Because the people who care to erode your rights, as per your novel sloganeering, are on the move right now, dude.
We don’t have to agree, and my hands are not under my butt, dude.
If the government is doing the demanding, that is where I will focus my efforts.
I can’t fault a hypothetical company for going after hypothetical profit.