“Remington IS in the business of selling things to the people targeted by the state government they have reaffirmed in their decision to remain.”
I do not agree that remington’s decision to remain in NY reaffirms the actions of the state. If that is the case than every firearms company that remained in the US after the AWB of 1994 could be accused of supporting that law. The choice for Remington may be to stay or go bankrupt.
“BTW - The emotional ploy of trying to equate individuals with companies, who by definition exist for very different reasons, is an annoying liberal tactic.”
I’m sorry you see it that way but if Remington can be accused of supporting oppression simply by paying taxes how is that different than an individual paying taxes? Are you also going to boycott all NY businesses because they also pay taxes to Il Duce Cuomo’s govt? Remington loudly opposed the law and sent many of its workers to demonstrations against it. I can understand a boycott if they were favor of it but they were not.
Do you, as an individual, ask people to buy things from you for your livelihood? I assume you work for a company, presumably not one whose products are now illegal in the state you live in, earning your paycheck by providing value to the company.
We disagree on the reaffirmation aspects of this decision. That's fine - but (once again) I must remind you that the balancing act that you proclaim is necessary on Remington's behalf is one of their acceptance (or tacit endorsement, from a different point of view) of NYS actions against the willingness of their customer base to accept that action. Remington has made their decision. Their customer base now is free to make their own decisions.
The AWB was a nation wide law - not one principality among many. Escaping that law was not nearly as simple, and (to be honest) that law was not nearly as draconian as the current NYS law.
I wish you well in your survival quest there in NYS.
The irony is that they may go bankrupt because they stayed.