Printable View
Exactly. They boycotted the offending party directly. I have no problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.man
Last I checked, the DOW, and the greater hunting industry in general, was not fighting against us on the 2nd Amendment.
Boycotts are great. They can be effective. But first, you have to pick the right target.
I would agree if this was the Dow telling us we couldn't have standard capacity magazines and have to do background checks etc. but they have been telling us we can't use more than a certain amount of rounds forever...at least as far as I have been hunting, plus a hunters safety license. So we should have been boycotting hunting since that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.man
One business that will feel real pain in a boycott works fine, But a government run by democrats that want hunters and shooters criminalized...they don't give a shit.
But their constituents might. The point of this boycott is to put the pressure on the State Government through the small businesses in the state. Will it suck for some good folks trying to make a living? Yep. But there are a lot of people that refuse to compromise on the big picture for the little one.
My personal hope is that every single supporter of the 2nd amendment takes their vacation dollars out of state and tells the effected businesses exactly why. Maybe at some point more people will wake up. This whole go along to get along thing is not working.
"Service unavailable" is all that shows on the cdow website....guess some people changed their minds
The common perception from this side of the state line is that, if you take a 16 round magazine into CO you get slammed with a felony and lose your 2A. Right or wrong, people are starting to avoid Colorado for a variety of purposes, not just hunting.
Colorado is the new California. "You can go there, just don't take your guns"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick-Boy
I would suspect that most of the constituents affected by a boycott don't vote Democrat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I wouldnt bet on it. Hardest hit are gonna be the small motels in Estes, Waldon etc, gas stations, restaurants, gift shops, bars, mechanics, etc. A lot of these businesses make more during hunting season then the rest if the year, but also I know a few of those owners who moved here to escape california yet continued to vote the same way.
It's too bad that these laws were passed at the state and not local level. The reaction should also be at the state level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Some of the laws passed are very ambiguous. Would you be willing to take the risk while on vacation that your magazine with a removable floorplate is "illegal"?
I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but do you think this will actually work? I see the state sticking to us hunters and selling more out of state tags for $550 vs. $49 for residents, that's a hell of allot more revenue. My .02....
That alone would enact their own measure for a boycott. When you make something too expensive for anyone to enjoy, you'll see a huge backlash. I see it going like this-Quote:
Originally Posted by n8tive97
Boycott, state starts to see the economic impact. To offset the negative impact they raise the fee for tags. Even less purchase tags, economic impact worsens. To offset this, they raise taxes. Public gets pissed. Voters enact change.
Ideally, that's how it would work, now if it actually works out that way I can't say.