e-Bay to ban any gun part sales.

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Roper, Aug 3, 2007.

  1. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,274
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +764 / 1
    e-Bay has announced that they will be banning the sale of anything to do with guns. Primers, shells, parts, stocks, grips, anything. They say it's because the shooter of the VT tragedy MAY have purchased something from e-bay, no proof of facts at all.

    This post is not to generate discussion about the right/wrong of this decision. It's to offer those who disagree with a voice. The link below allows you to sign a petition to e-Bay stating you disagree.

    Firearms owners are continually bombarded by attempts to limit or remove our right to a sport we enjoy. Do nothing and it will be gone in our lifetimes for sure.

    http://www.petitiononline.com/ebay0001/

    Chris/Mods, I understand if you remove this for any reason...but I feel compelled to share this information with our community.
  2. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Roper, thanks for the link to the petition.

    JonB
  3. chadk Be the guide...

    Posts: 5,057
    Snohomish, WA.
    Ratings: +41 / 0
    sounds like a great opportunity for some of the other gun related auction sites to fill in the gap if ebay is going to fold so easily... Their loss will just be somebody's gain...
  4. Itchy Dog Some call me Kirk Werner

    Posts: 3,718
    Doo-vall
    Ratings: +412 / 0
    Amen. I'd rather see some smaller guys make out anyway.
  5. Chris Scoones Administrator

    Posts: 3,577
    North Bend
    Ratings: +293 / 0
    I don't see a problem. :confused:
  6. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Folks, they run a business. Businesses make decisions in interests on making/retaining revenue. I am sure they are not taking a social stance here. It's a simple equation: profits earned vs. risk of liabilty. It looks like their counsel decided the risk of liabilty was greater. Bummer for folks that purchased online, but not worth a public discourse in my opinion....

    The VP - Trust and Safety, Matt Halprin, stated it was the "right thing to do" and "brings the US policy in line with the policies of other global markets."

    That's a nice way of saying, "Our investors are nervous, we can't take a hit from a lawsuit, so we will just shut it down."

    That's the world we live in, but it's their business and their right. Really no different than the thousands of OB/GYN doctors who don't deliver anymore due to the risk of litigation/cost of insurance. God Bless our judicial system......
  7. Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Posts: 3,875
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +123 / 0
    I was going to say something about ebay, but I'll keep it to myself.
    Let freedom ring. Free men own guns and know how and when to use'em.
  8. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Posted by Jason Baker:
    What makes you so sure of this Jason?

    Sounds like you know more about their motives than they do.
    I think your ability to translate corporatese is seriously in question here Jason! If the man says that they are bringing "US policy in line with the policies of other global markets." Then I think you have to at least consider the possibily that he means what he says, hm?
    I wonder, Jason, what your stand is on the gunmaker's liability suits? Are you perhaps one of the people who claim that these suits are NOT meant to bankrupt the firearms industry? Just curious.

    Yes! and it's our right to choose who we would prefer to do business with. I am beginning to think that the voting we do with our dollars is far more important than the voting that we do with our ballots, especially in King County.;)

    JonB
  9. Josh dead in the water

    Posts: 2,930
    NW Washington
    Ratings: +495 / 2
    I am inclined to agree with Jason.

    If you want to blame something for this, blame the litigious society we live in. When anyone can sue for anything, you are going to get stuff like this (and no trespassing signs, and "hey idiot, your hot coffee is hot" cups at mcdonalds). Or, you could blame the fact that a company's stock price is based on nothing more than what people think of that company at any particular moment. If Ebay thinks that not selling gun parts will keep them from being thought of as someone who provided guns to the VT lunatic, you can bet they are going to consider doing it.

    In any case, the joy of a free market system is that a smaller company with less at stake will take up the challenge. Probably giving better service to it's users than ebay did.
  10. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Posted by Josh Root
    Can you explain why they are not as concerned about marketing motor vehicles or any number of other products that kill many times more people each year than guns?

    Could it be that they are succumbing to the pressure of anti gun groups and anti gun ltigation conceived, sponsored, and poropagated by anti gun activists?

    Oh! That's right! The gunmaker liability suits were never meant to put the gun industry out of business. That's just an inconvenient by product.:rolleyes:

    JonB
  11. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Jon, you strike me as a guy who really likes to draw boxes around people. :confused:

    Yes, I am a corporate schmuck and understand the "rules of decision making" that takes place in our boardrooms. The decision are made to protect the assets of the company and it has a nice benefit of keeping people employeed and even hiring more if we do a really good job. Let's define good job. Good job is defined by two things: revenue growth and earning growth, That's it! Simple, huh?

    Now, if this case, I will guarantee you that the risk simply outweighed the gains. I will also guarantee you that their "risk management" department, their General Counsel, and probably some insurance actuary help them make this decison. It's about protecting the company, not an underlying evil element trying to stop us from hunting pheasants and owning a handgun.

    Now, I know your version makes for a better story, i.e. we didn't really land on the moon; but I just don't buy it. eBay would probably sell Chinese babies and body parts if they could get away with it. why don't they? Because it looks bad and when they look bad it chases customers and investors away. So, I guess they decided that the VT tragedy looked bad? You know, it doesn't really matter if the kid bought online or not. Just the chance that if proven, it could cost them hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars in liability is enough to close down the shop. Any good CEO would do EXACTLY the same thing....


    By the way, before you etch those lines around me; I drove 6 hours roundtrip last night to present a Project Healing Waters opportunity (check it out online) to a TU group in Asheville, NC. One of those corporate CEOs donated $50,000 for me to get it off the ground in North Carolina. Capitalism isn't always bad, friend....

    Today I was thinking while driving to work in my Prius if my SIG SAUER P229 needed some cleaning and I also if the batteries in my tach-light were still strong? Boxes are bad, Jon, really simple and bad....
  12. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
    Drawing boxes around people! Fer Chrissakes Jason!!! LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST WROTE!!!

    OK, if you want a box, try this on for size:
    You are missing the larger issue because you don't want to see it.
    WHY are the ebay honchos concerned about liability? Because the anti gun left has conceived, sponsored and propagated a legal strategy that is bent upon eliminating the firearms industry through attrition.

    Yes, corporate hacks all across the fruited plains are running scared from anything that has to do with firearms. You want to blame it on the lawyers? WHO IS PAYING THE LAWYERS?????
    Even when they lose, someone has to pay. Who is that, Jason?

    Now, when you're done thinking up new ways to assault my character and accuse me of "putting people in boxes", why don't you engage in some real debate and answer the question from my previous post, Jason, what is your stand is on the gunmaker's liability suits? Are you perhaps one of the people who claim that these suits are NOT meant to bankrupt the firearms industry?

    Here you are trying to "put me into a box" and it looks as though you haven't even figured out how to make the cardboard yet.:rofl: I happen to be an avowed capitalist.

    That's all cool Jason, I don't need to know what kind of car you drive or what kind of piece you carry. My impression of you is based solely on what you present here.
    Pass the salt please.

    JonB
  13. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    What do I think of gun control? I think we have a serious problem with violent crime in this country to a staggering proportion. I think that guns are too easy for "bad people" to get because "good people" want very little restriction on what it takes to get one.

    We hashed this out weeks ago on the forum and all the stats ar ein that thread. I don't have the energy to live through it again.

    The salts already in your open wounds Jon. The left may be out to get you, but we've got the right there to fight them, right? So, nothing happens in the end anyway. You'll have any gun you want Jon.

    The anti-gun left didn't propagate anything. Something happen all by itself that exposed eBay to liability and they reacted. what would you do as a CEO? Keep selling? Look like you don't are? Open yourself up for massive litigation? They may slip by this time, but if it happened again; it would be all over. Every gun control freak in the country would be jumping up and down screaming, "eBay is satan", eBay killed my son/daughter/husband....

    It's all good Jon, we've got better things to do than carry this one. I get the feeling we aren't going to find any common ground here. I'm signing off of this one. I hope you do as well. :)
  14. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Jason, First of all it's not fair to get a few kicks in and then ask me to stop. You're better than that aren't you?
    You are still evading this question:
    Jason, what is your stand on the gunmaker's liability suits? Are you perhaps one of the people who claim that these suits are NOT meant to bankrupt the firearms industry?
    I'm sure you can see that this question is not about gun control in general but, about one specific aspect of the gun control agenda of the left wing.

    Yes, ebay chose to eliminate gun auctions a couple of years ago. Now they've chosen to eliminate auctions for gun parts, accessories, etc. You believe that the choice was based entirely on liability issues. That is why I posed the question which I will rephrase and ask again: do you believe that the continued rash of gun industry lawsuits is meant to damage the firearms industry?

    I believe that these lawsuits are part of a strategy by anti gun activists to damage the industry. You will find that this is the concensus view of the NRA, GOA, SAF, and other serious defenders of the 2nd ammendment. These are not the deranged ravings of an isolated lunatic gun nut, even though you would like to "put me in that box" .

    It's an honest open question Jason. I'm calling you out. You have responded with claims of firearms ownership and sniper training and other irrellevant information. I don't care what you own. I'm asking you what you believe.

    Fair enough?

    JonB
  15. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,274
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +764 / 1
    Gents, I think Y'all missed my suggestion that this not be a pissing match about right or wrong of e-Bay banning gun part for auction.

    But since this is my post, and Y'all (well, two of you) have squared off, let me share my opinion on the subjects.

    First, when one individual makes a decision to break the law, the trickle down effect can be horrible. Particularly when a company takes a myopic stance that guns are the only killers out there. If Cho had bought underwear on line, would we all be bare assed in a month? I doubt it. To link this decision to the VT tragedy is ludicris, there's no proof Cho bought gun parts, but he did buy rubber duckies. Bath time will never be the same...bawling:

    Jason, there aren't too many guns out there, there are too many criminals. How many people has your Sig killed so far? :rolleyes:

    A lot of people are selling gun related items on e-Bay that they have come by in many ways. Lots of vintage items will probably be thrown away because folks out of the mainstream in shooting sports don't know about Gunbroker, Guns America, AuctionArms, etc. Too bad, it has nothing to do with VT.

    But one more liberal battle will have been won and one more mark against a legitimate sport. Those of you that do care, send the $35 bucks to the NRA for a year. See if it's worth it to keep your sport in tact.

    And no, I won't be replying to any of this...
  16. Josh dead in the water

    Posts: 2,930
    NW Washington
    Ratings: +495 / 2
    I don't really think the gun lawsuits have much to do with this, but even if they do, it just goes back to my statement that our litigious society is to blame. Suing large corporations didn't start with the gun companies, nor did it start with the cigarette companies. You can believe that this is some large anti-gun agenda. But it would be more accurate to say that it is a large trial-lawyer agenda. Big lawsuits mean big money for them. Who pays the lawyers? Nobody unless the lawsuits are successful, and even then, it is the losers. Litigation attorneys, by and large, work on a contingency basis. Any group who hates something (trans-fat, high fructose corn syrup, drunk driving, guns, cigarettes, etc) can easily hire a team of lawyers without spending a penny of their own money. This is what ebay is worried about.

    Why isn't ebay worried about cars? Because they don't think that cars have a bad public image. Jason is right, ebay would sell anything that they thought they could get away with. They didn't stop people from selling used underwear because they thought it was disgusting. They stopped because people were complaining to them. Every item on ebay is just a dollar sign to the bean counters, they only care about what each item is if they think it will open them up to potential liability or adversly affect their stock price.

    There may be a vast anti-gun conspiracy, but it doesn't reside at ebay HQ. They just want to make as much money as possible. Just like every other corporation.
  17. Jon Borcherding New Member

    Posts: 535
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I don't recall making the claim that there is a vast anti gun conspiracy centered at ebay.
    I believe that ebay is operating like a profitable corporation and cutting it's liability by banning the sale of gun parts. I think we all agree on this.
    I think that the continuing rash of lawsuits against gunmakers and amunition manufacturers is part of the strategy of the anti-gun left. If you read the material, you'll find that this is the concensus view of the NRA, the GOA, and the SAF.
    Some NRA resources on this topic:

    http://www.nraila.org/Search/Search.aspx

    The GOA has quite an archive of info on this topic. This is a good place to start:

    http://www.gunowners.org/altcwtb.htm

    The SAF has a relevant article here:

    http://www.saf.org/hs981210.html

    Josh & Jason, It seems to me that you are both carrying water for the anti gun zealots because you both use a common tactic of the anti gun left which is to paint gun owners with a broad brush as being Gun Nuts, Conspiracy Theorists, and uninformed redneck reactionaries. I have no hope of changing your assessment, however I would like to point out that as a Gun Nut, Conspiracy Theorist and Redneck Reactionary, I'm in pretty damn good company with the Millions of NRA, GOA and SAF members nation wide who would also share this dubious distinction with which you have attempted to brand me.

    Roper, I have taken a personal vow to stand up against the maligning and marginalizing of gun owners who support the second amendment. I read your original post and answered the call to action. Thank you for starting this thread.

    JonB
  18. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Jon,

    You have totally missed the point of either of our posts. No one branded anything, however you are starting to do a pretty good job of branding yourself. I am not anti-gun. I've hunting all my life as my father did and his before him. I served in the Ranger Battalion for 10-years. I have handguns for home protection. How you get this anti-gun thing is beyond me? Josh and I were just trying to correct your assessment that the anti-gun left was behind the Ebay decision, and that was the tenor of your thread. I live in the center Jon, I can see the argument from both sides. We have more gun laws in the US than almost any country in the world, short of an outright outlawing. We still have huge violent crime (gun related) statistics. Obviously, more legislation is not the answer. I don't have one either, but I certainly listen to BOTH sides of argument.

    I would like to believe that they'll be some resolution to this issue in the future. However, I'm realistic. This is a "boiler point" issue that the fringes (right and left) will control. When anyone mentions the topic we'll hear the "Gun Nuts, Conspiracy Theorists, and uninformed redneck reactionaries" vs. those "carrying water for the anti gun zealots" square off and nothing gets accomplished. Take off the gloves Jon, I'm not the enemy....
  19. Jason Baker Member

    Posts: 776
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  20. nomlasder Active Member

    Posts: 1,317
    Burien.
    Ratings: +110 / 0

    I'd love to be a fly on the wall, when these guys were in the same room together.