As I have browsed various topics concerning the recent Democrat acquisition of Congress and Bush's anti-gun stance, I have considered a scenario to change the situation.
We broke Smith and Wesson when they signed that deal with the government. Public (gun owner) compliance with the boycott was very high and S&W felt lots of pain.
Why wouldn't such a boycott with ANY firearm or ammunition manufacturer that supplies the government work?
What would happen if the ammunition manufacturers all felt massive financial pain? What if they decided to cease supplying ammunition to the military and law enforcement agencies at all levels in order to avoid or stop such a boycott?
During the AWB, we still purchased Glocks with reduced capacity magazines. At the same time, Glock aggressively supplied the law enforcement community with cheap Glocks with regular capacity magazines. What would happen if Glock sales dropped to 1% of their current level?
Look what happened to Prohibition. There was MASSIVE noncompliance and the government had to give up. If we exert pressure through simple refusal to spend money on gun stuff, I think we could get them to back off.
What?
Nylarthotep
I'm thinking there is a serious problem with the logic. The Smith&Wesson boycott was a direct result of their compliance with a government mandate (HUD rules and not legislation) that was easily ignored by all the rest of the firearms industry. If the present elected legislature passes gun laws then they would all have to abide by it and when they felt the pain of your proposed boycott, they still would have to comply. If they didn't comply, then the government would jail their managers if not shut them down completely, which would be exactly something the anti-gun crowd wants.
Your scenario would harm the manufacturers for providing the tools that our troops and police need to do their job. And with the lack of ball ammunition as it is now, this would be sending a message that the anti-gun politicos would love. "The Gun-Nuts hate out troops." I'm sure that would help with the further advancement of support of the citizenry that aren't firmly gun rights supporters.
I also find it unlikely that the gun dealers would feel any great pain at this time due to the sheer volume of funds that the military contracts are providing. It would end up hurting them further down the line, but that won't prevent anti-gun legislation.
Additionally, hurting the firearms industry won't help in that if they stop providing ammunition to the government, the government will go to international providers. I'm betting the Russian ammunition industry would love that. And with that you'd have the further risk of having lower quality ammunition going to our troops. Another really bad idea.
uh, yea, but start with ruger
Boycott Ruger until they renounce the tactics of their founder Bill "father of the full-capacity magazine ban" Ruger. Have them adopt such a stance in the bylaws of the corporation saying they would rather liquidate than sell something to the government that they were not able to sell to citizens.
Dropping a ton of cash with the NRA to pay for new headquarters and a cool museum should not give you a pass on a betrayal that's arguably as bad as what S&W did.
You can ask for a boycott, but it needs to be widespread to be effective.