|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Troubled German gunmaker Heckler & Koch takes aim at US for sales
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
From the town that has armed Germany since the 1800s, Andreas Heeschen is fighting a very 21st century battle. The antagonists include regulators and bondholders.
At stake is control of Heckler & Koch, an iconic brand of military and police weapons that descends from Mauser, which made rifles for 19th century empires and later for the Nazis.
Confronting declining sales and creditor concerns, Heeschen, H&K's owner, has a plan to turn the tide: tapping into Americans' love of firearms. ...
The company started preparing for a big push into the US last summer, when it began modifying its machinery to switch production from military rifles to pistols.
|
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/11/2015)
|
Now all they need to do is to offer that rifle (semiauto version) in the U.S. to civilians for under $1000.
If not, there ain't no market. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
