From: Johann Opitz Subject: My letter to S&W Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:51:52 -0800 To: firearms-alert@lists.best.com This is an open letter - please distribute freely! - JPO ***** BOYCOTT SMITH & WESSON ***** ======================================================== Ed Schultz, CEO & President Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Ave. Springfield, MA 01104 Subject: S&W's agreement with the enemies of liberty Dear Mr. Schultz: I was born in Springfield 51 years ago; I served in the Vietnam War. Both of my parents, who are still alive, were born and raised in Springfield; one was raised in near poverty, the other slightly better. My father served in W.W.II and the Korean War. Both of my grandfathers served in W.W.I; one served in the Spanish-American War. My roots in this country, on my mother's side, go back to the founder of North Hampton, Cornet Joseph Parsons (ca. 1635). One of my ancestors who fought in the War of Independence died at and is buried at Yorktown, VA. (the place where the British surrendered if you have forgotten your American history). We all served this country, from the French and Indian Wars on, because we all believed in freedom and liberty -- including the individual's right to keep and bear arms. In studying world history, one item alone stands out as distinguishing a free individual from a subject, a serf, a peasant, and a slave -- and that is the individual's right to keep and bear arms; including weapons of war. Even Aristotle understood the importance of this right. "The artisans, and the husbandmen, and the warriors, all have to share in the government. But the husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class. That they should share in all the offices is an impossibility: for generals and guardians of the citizens, and nearly all the principal magistrates, must be taken from the class of those who carry arms. Yet, if the two other classes have no share in government, how can they be loyal citizens? It may be said that those who have arms must necessarily be masters of both the other classes, but this is not so easily accomplished unless they are numerous; and if they are, why should the other classes share in the government at all, or have power to appoint magistrates?" The noted Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, Esq. (ca. early 1700s) stated: "The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He who has nothing, and belongs to another, must be defended by him, and needs no arms: but he who thinks he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses, or else he lives precariously and at discretion. And though for a while those who have the sword in their power abstain from doing him injury; yet, by degrees, he will be awed into submission to every arbitrary command. Our ancestors, by being always armed, and frequently in action, defended themselves against the Romans, Danes and English; and maintained their liberty against the encroachments of their own princes." The agreement S&W made with the federal government and numerous other local governments is not only a betrayal of the Second Amendment -- it, also, has so many flaws, such as undefined terms and conditions (many which would be found as "unconstitutionally vague" if contained in a law) along with allowing the federal government to make unilateral changes to the agreement -- that the federal government has effectively taken over total control of S&W. How is this any different than Germany's Nazis allowing a private business to continue operating as such? "Between 1936 and 1939 the controls to which German business was subject were extended to include imports and foreign exchange, allocation of raw materials, allocation of labor, prices, wages, profits and investment. Their impact varied from one sector to another but extended to agriculture as well as industry, the plan being responsible for producing and distributing the tractors and fertilizers. Business still remained in private or corporate hands, but to a large extent the government through the Four-Year Plan dictated what companies could produce, how much new investment they should be allowed to make, where any new plants should be sited, what raw materials they could obtain, what prices to charge, what wages to pay, how much profit they could make--and how they should use it (after paying increased taxes) for compulsory reinvestment in their businesses or the purchase of government bonds." -- Alan Bullock, _Hitler and Stalin_ (Knopf 1991) I don't know who S&W's attorneys are, but they most certainly did not act in the best interest of S&W and the stockholders. I have to strongly suspect that these lawyers have been "bought" by those hostile to the individual's right to keep and bear arms and who, also, are probably hostile to the rest of the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the citizens of this nation. I will boycott all S&W products along with products made by other subsidiaries of Tomkins PLC. I'm a founding member of the NRA Members' Council of Silicon Valley and I will strongly encourage that all fellow members (now over 2,000) do likewise. This letter will also be posted to a major gun-rights list on the Internet to join others in the call for a total boycott. This, undoubtly, will bring great joy to the stockholders of Tomkins PLC. By the way, what other portions of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights does Smith & Wesson intend on betraying? Sincerely, Johann P. Opitz Libertarian and Life Member of the NRA, CRPA, NSRPA, SAF, CCRKBA, LEAA, GOA -- Johann Opitz RKBA! Trigger Locks are Rapist Approved!