billyz wrote:I do not believe the raid on Gibson had anything to do with politics. It had to do with the head of gibson thinking he was above the law. They were repeatedly warned about thier flagrant violation of the lacy act ,yet the head of gibson choose to continue his disregard of the law.
Why have no other builders been raided? Because they have been more compliant with the laws of the land.
I love my Gibsons but the current owner does not conduct business in a way that is in the spirit of cooperation with the public .
As for the source of the referenced article, well consider the source. People who are looking for excuses will always find one.
Everything has to do with politics. Absolutely everything. The Lacy Act is inherently political, on an international level.
Indeed, as you say "consider the source". And your source that Henry Juszkiewicz "does not conduct business in a way that is in the spirit of cooperation with the public" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and "the head of gibson choose to continue his disregard of the law" is what, exactly? Care to cite your sources?
I've read the Lacy Act. Like most law written and enacted by Congress, it is ambiguous, silly and lacks good sense.
There's a reason the Framers gave the federal government 30-35 (depending on how you count them) very specific powers. At least half the USC is made up out of thin air. Doesn't matter who points it out, true is true.
...Doesn't matter who points it out, true is true.
I couldn't agree more. So far, I haven't seen any substantial evidence for either side of the argument in this thread. I have heard a lot of conclusions with no supporting evidence either way. So, "innocent until proven guilty" applies here to both sides. The only evidence, that I am aware of, is that Gibson agreed to pay a settlement. Thay may or may not be construed as an admission of guilt.
cbass wrote:Well we can sit around bitchin about or about 40 million of us could show up In DC demanding these fuckers head on a platter.Make the next guys to scared to be corrupt.
cbass wrote:Well we can sit around bitchin about or about 40 million of us could show up In DC demanding these fuckers head on a platter.Make the next guys to scared to be corrupt.
The Million Guitar March ?
reddog
Lol everyone bring an amp and we'll rock em out of office
Reeltarded wrote:Taylor? Those are for psychologists and accountants who gon't want to get "guitar dirty".
Well that explains why I own a Taylor
My brother had a taylor (I only got 5 brothers)and it was one of the easiest playing acoustics i've ever picked up..It sounded good too.Till he put a brass saddle and nut on it.
I didn't like any of the Martin's I tried, the Gibson's I liked were too high priced, the Yamaha's sounded wonderful but I ended up with a $2000 Taylor the first expensive acoustic I ever owned. Sold my home built T-bucket hot rod to fund that guitar. Wish I had the t-bucket back.
That sounds like a shitty trade. The car sounds fun.
Umm.. so, there hasn't been a great acoustic guitar built since.. 1962, but more properly since about 1952, slope shouldered J- models aside in some respects. Santa Cruz made Ds and OMs are pretty good. Stiff, but pretty good. If you want a killer acoustic you need bar frets.
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
