A Message from Matt Hipwell

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but I find this response to be very pompous in nature. We all appreciate what your family has done for firearm owners over the years but to say things like "What have you done to help gun owners" or implying that we are all just a bunch of keyboard warriors is rather insulting. Most of us don't make a living off this industry so if we are going to be honest let's admit that fighting for gun owner's rights is beneficial to BOTH gun owners annnnnd retaillers.
 
Mosin_redstar said:
Hahaha your one to talk about rhetoric... maybe you can lend me the crystal ball that tells you "they are going to steal them anyway", are you saying there's no point to the court case against the feds? Do you know the outcome already? You must know something we don't...
Click to expand...

Well, no see.

Anyone who can actually think critically would know that if we win in court, then this all becomes moot.

I've asked now, several times, how exactly winning the court case is contingent upon dealers not taking the payout and you've not answered that. Neither has anyone else. Besides L86's idea that the judges will be subconsiously swayed by the media.
 
Steve_B said:
Meh. No matter how slow my day might be, I can always spend it better than trying to convince someone who is determined they already know the answer.
Nobody wins the internet.
Click to expand...

If thats the best you can do to convince someone...ouch

I don't know the answer. That's why I am asking. But dang dude, an inability to provide even one hypothetical example really isn't convincing.
 
Sounds to me like a lot of gaslighting and rhetoric to justify your complicity in the first step of the confiscation scheme and squandering of $700k. Maybe I'm missing something though...
 
Sigh...this crap is giving me a damn headache....it's kinda like closing the gate after the horses are out..suprise !
Taxpayers are the ones who lose here,..along with the rest of us...
 
Yuri_Wolverine said:

Good morning,

I am shocked by the reaction that came from the vast number of people in the firearms community yesterday. I have been involved in the fight for legal and responsible firearm ownership for over 30 years. It has had an impact on me in more ways than you can count; from Bill C-68 and converted autos being banned, the high-capacity magazine debacle, short barrel handguns, the current OIC and any future amendments.

{blah blah blah pandering)

As of today, I am stepping down as a director from the board of the CSAAA, I do not want to muddy the political and legal waters any further.



Regards,

Matt Hipwell​
Click to expand...

Surprised? You tossed us all under the bus... gave Mendicino a win and now you are deserting the sinking ship that is the CSAAA after you made sure you had a lifeboat to hide in.
 
Watched the news regarding this on YouTube. Power & Politics did a good job of putting some hard questions to Medicino. CSAAA president and the interview classify it not as a collaboration, but reluctant cooperation and ‘over a barrel’.

Watch the whole segment and make up your own mind. I think the CSAAA was in a difficult situation and their interactions with the government has been mischaracterized by the government to their benefit.

Watch it yourself; https://youtu.be/a9WQYUS_UAM
 
I’d buy guns off Hitler if they were the right price. Anyone who doesn’t see this ending in restrictions for everything is stupid you should have bought what you could while you could end of story.
 
Joel said:
Well, no see.

Anyone who can actually think critically would know that if we win in court, then this all becomes moot.

I've asked now, several times, how exactly winning the court case is contingent upon dealers not taking the payout and you've not answered that. Neither has anyone else. Besides L86's idea that the judges will be subconsiously swayed by the media.
Click to expand...

I believe one could easily make the argument (i dont believe this, but this is the type of things lawyers excel at) that if vendors are ready and willing to get rid of their stock of banned rifles, it proves these items aren't "needed" to hunt or target shoot or what have you. Liberals wouldn't have voluntarily done this to help a gun business out, they obviously had some political trap, and my theory seems like it makes sense (not logically but in terms of how they do business...) That said im not judging anyone i dont know what positions theyre in financial or otherwise.
 
apexanimal said:
I believe one could easily make the argument (i dont believe this, but this is the type of things lawyers excel at) that if vendors are ready and willing to get rid of their stock of banned rifles, it proves these items aren't "needed" to hunt or target shoot or what have you. Liberals wouldn't have voluntarily done this to help a gun business out, they obviously had some political trap, and my theory seems like it makes sense (not logically but in terms of how they do business...) That said im not judging anyone i dont know what positions theyre in financial or otherwise.
Click to expand...

There! Actually proposing a mechanism through which this could hurt us! Not just saying "its a massive PR win!"

Hallelujah.

Leaving the merits of the argument aside, at least its taking some time to actually think this through and say "here's a way it could hurt us" instead of just "It will! You idiot! Whats wrong with you?"
 
I can see how CSAAA thought they were doing the right thing by their membership.

Unfortunately, every penny of the purported $700K contract was money well spent by the libs for both the speaking points and the ability to parade the CSAAA around as partners in facilitating the first step of their gun buy back.

Folks in the Shooting Sports are upset because they supported the OIC court case, only to find out the CSAAA signed a contract with the very entity they were battling in court.

Despite what I believe to be good intentions on the part of CSAAA, they got played hard core by the libs who are masters of divide and conquer.
 
Liberals have nothing to do with that, CSAAA and its traitors do the damage.......in this case......
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the video Matt.

Putting everything else aside. What retailers can do about the inventory that is now prohibited and cannot sell and they need money to survive? Can we talk about this now? I am drawing blank, but would like to hear suggestions.
 
Jay said:
I can see how CSAAA thought they were doing the right thing by their membership.

Unfortunately, every penny of the purported $700K contract was money well spent by the libs for both the speaking points and the ability to parade the CSAAA around as partners in facilitating the first step of their gun buy back.

Folks in the Shooting Sports are upset because they supported the OIC court case, only to find out the CSAAA signed a contract with the very entity they were battling in court.

Despite what I believe to be good intentions on the part of CSAAA, they got played hard core by the libs who are masters of divide and conquer.
Click to expand...


Customers have a long memory, just look at HS precision and having Lon Horiuchi in their catalog
 
astuart44 said:
Boys, girls, and everyone else, just keep buying and selling guns.
Click to expand...

I wish I could! Out of the 25 or so I own, I can only sell 4 of them; the rest is "dead inventory", to borrow a phrase.

One other poster said that the CSAAA deal was made with good intentions; the proverb that comes to mind is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Unfortunately, this is coming true. In technicolor.

I get that retailers must be hurting, but making a deal with the devil is not the way to go. What is? I don't know, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I also agree with another poster, who said the $700k is money well spent by the libs, at being able to now parade them around as a willing participant to their scheme, and stir the pot within.

Sad times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom