HomeElection 2008Update on the Cooper Firearms story


Update on the Cooper Firearms story — 28 Comments

  1. You’re spot on about the interview being what sent it over the top. No one would have noticed if he kept his mouth shut. However, in an article about CEOs supporting Obama, he was the only representative of the firearms community, and he made no effort to point out that he was the only one (at least none that was printed, or stated on their website).

    As for the first note, my gut is that he told them that and put the statement up himself in order to cover his tracks. He’s only given to on other candidate (also a Dem), so he may not have known to what extent the information was public. Notice that the statement about supposedly giving to McCain actually didn’t stay up very long.

    I will clarify that I don’t have evidence of this, it’s just a suspicion. I know others are claiming to “know” the company is involved in the cover-up and it was all planned out, but they don’t have any evidence.

  2. If a CEO of a company was fired because he stated he was voting for McCain, you would see people up in arms. However since he stated he was voting for Obama, he deserves to be fired? Over fifty percent of the country is voting for Obama!

    I agree about the second amendment being protected (which Obama says he will), but what about the first amendment? Last time I checked that was in the constitution. Last time I checked we weren’t a fascist country. I hope the Neo-Cons will support the right of people to have guns AND be able to have their own opinions and express them. I hope people actually boycott Cooper guns BECAUSE they won’t let their employees vote a certain way. Now THAT is Un-American.

  3. Carrie,

    I support the first amendment, as do the majority of the others who expressed their disgust. The First Amendment is about government infringement on speech, there is no guarantee that our speech will not have repercussions arising from private parties. If my speech harmed my employer, I would not expect to be employed for long.

    Mr. Cooper expressed his opinions, and we expressed ours. I chose not to support a business that so vocally acts in a way counter to their best interests and mine. Mr. Cooper tied his name, his company’s name, and the NRA to his support of Obama. This is much more than just quietly voting for him, or even donating as he did. Should I be forced to purchase products from them?

    As to support of the First Amendment, Maybe you should check into Sen. Obama’s support of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and his attempts to muzzle NRA ads.

    Over 50%, huh? That is a guess at best. It may happen, but let’s not count the chicken’s too long before they hatch.

  4. Making Cooper step down is just plain wrong.
    Barack is a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment:

    Joe the Gun Nut
    P.S. McCain has a C rating from the NRA!

  5. Also, I’ll buy a Cooper 57-M the second they rehire Cooper.
    I have a serious ground squirrel problem that needs attending to.

    Joe the Gun Nute

  6. Cooper Firearms is a direct representation of corporate America beating it’s employees down for not going along with their ideas.

    What’s even worse is… Dan Cooper I’m sure started his company to live the “American Dream” and now he’s being forced out of the company he started for his personal beliefs.

    Cooper Firearms make some very well reputed firearms… BUT… I feel everyone should BOYCOTT Cooper Firearms until they give a formal appology to Dan Cooper and give him back his position.

  7. Obama supports the rights of gunowners, check his website. He also has a legitimate concern regarding the deaths of children by gunfire, and I’d really be interested in why NRA members think these are mutually exclusive. The boy who blew off his own head with an Uzi at a gun show recently, the young victims of drive-by shootings in Chicago, the child who plays with his parent’s gun and shoots his sibling – these are things that should concern us all. Some restrictions of gun ownership are, in my opinion, necessary to protect the nongun-owning public and children. Go shoot all the rabbits, deer and elk you want, gun owners. Keeping weapons out of the hands of gangs, criminals and children doesn’t infringe on YOU in any way. And why does ANYONE need an Uzi?

    Thanks for reading this, I hope a reasoned response is posted that doesn’t start with name-calling!


    According to the CDC: The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04).

  8. Peter and Brian have it right. The Board of Directors has to look out for the long-term success of the company. Mr. Cooper has the right to express his opinion, and has the responsibility and accountability for the fallout. He is more than free to start another company and cater to whatever market niche he deems suitable.

    This company will be lucky to continue under its present name. Dan Cooper will be synonymous with Quisling for a loooooong time.

    As far as the others – quit drinking the Kool-Aid, trolls. Read something more than the propaganda on bHo’s website (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers would be a good start), and look at the actions, not the words.

    As for the CDC, there are ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’ (h/t Sam Clemens).

    The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting rabbits or squirrels – it’s about the right to self-defense (necessary to ensure the Right to Life), the right of the People to alter or abolish an oppressive government that becomes destructive of the ends of securing the Inalienable Rights of Man, and the obligation of the People to throw off such government as evinces a design to reduce the People under despotism (h/t Tom Jefferson).

  9. Smith and Wesson almost went under thanks to their support of Clinton. The first amendment gives you the right to say anything you want, but you can’t make me buy your products.

    I think Cooper Arms was wise in distancing the company from a political position. Why, as a company, have a stance at all ? If 50% are voting for each side, as Carrie says,
    then endorsing either side is stupid. just shut up and sell products. Apple has come out with endorsements of the Gay community. Look how it worked out for Ford and McDonalds. Businesses should just shut up and sell products. If they don’t. . .they have to accept the repercussions. Of course, maybe the Obama supporters will step up and buy lots of Cooper guns and show the nasty “NeoCons” how they feel. somehow though, I doubt that will happen.

  10. Obama is a enemy of the 2nd amendmant and firearms owners.
    He plans to tax all bullets and reloading supplies at a huge rate to tax them out of existance. Obama is a fraud and a cumpulsive liar.
    His entire past as a state senator was complete diarming the 2nd amenmant. For any of his followers to even say otherwise is total blindness to this mesiah of fraud. Obama is a muslim and a communist. The truth is coming out. Cooper must have been gay because Obama is a close gay supporter

  11. Obama, the Manchurian candidate
    In the classic 1962 movie thriller “The Manchurian Candidate,” a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.
    Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a “community organizer.” All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting “present” over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of “The One” who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.
    Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.
    In “The Manchurian Candidate,” several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.
    America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.
    Choose well.

  12. Anti-Gun-Rights Candidate Could Gut “Heller” Decision
    Now that Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Brady Campaign gun-control group, will the Supreme Court’s findings in the D.C. gun-ban “Heller” case matter?
    That’s the question experts are asking in the wake of Obama’s 11th-hour support from America’s leading gun-ban advocates. The late-date endorsement was conspicuously absent from most large news outlets. Those groups have repeatedly claimed that anti-gun-rights agendas were a key issue in the Democrat election defeats of 2000 and 2004.
    “Obama publicly supported Washington D.C.’s total gun ban until the Supreme Court’s ‘Heller’ case voided it,” says Alan Korwin, co-author of “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” which was just released (see below for news-media review copies). “His opposition to gun rights is well known and carefully documented in the new book,” he said. Obama swiftly reversed his position after the High Court found that gun rights belong to individuals, a point also documented in the new book.
    “Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the Court’s dissenters — that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects ‘collective rights’ of states,” Korwin notes. That position had little to support it in the historical record, but was favored by people seeking to ban firearms from public hands. The “collective rights” theory, a recent creation, was dismissed with ridicule by the Court (equating it to Alice in Wonderland). The Amendment itself speaks of “the security of a free state,” and “the right of the people.”
    As the first book released about the landmark gun-rights decision, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed” describes the events leading up to the case, and precisely what the Court said, word-for-word and in plain English. If Obama follows the Court’s decree, the civil rights of the general public should be fairly well safeguarded with respect to owning and using firearms.
    If he instead follows the lead of his endorsers in the Brady Campaign, gun rights as America has known them for more than two centuries could easily end. His campaign positions so far suggest the latter, if he is elected. His widely available voting record is 100% consistent — voting for every restriction on law-abiding gun use, and against every proposed protection for innocent individuals.
    Virtually all recent gun-law proposals fall into those two categories — bans on honest ownership and rights, or support for honest ownership and rights. New laws targeting criminals are rare, since every imaginable criminal activity with guns is already against the law and carries severe penalties.
    The only thing left, according to leading experts, is to ban guns for non-criminals, a policy choice adopted in some circles. Gun bans on criminals have had embarrassingly little effect on street gangs, the drug war and career criminals in general. Facing abject failure of crime-related social policies, and unable to disarm criminals, many politicians are turning instead to civil-disarmament schemes. Working against this trend, “Disarm Criminals First” says one campaign slogan in the Marksmanship Movement.
    The three publicly announced elements of the Brady-Obama anti-gun positions include 1- Ban the freedom to sell firearms from one innocent person to another, euphemistically called the “gun-show loophole”; 2- Allow all law enforcement officers to fish through gun-dealer records looking for paperwork or other violations, and compile data as they see fit, euphemistically known as “repealing the Tiahart Amendment” (which prevents them from doing so currently); and 3- permanently ban an enormous list of perfectly legal firearms and accessories based on looks, names and operating characteristics, euphemistically called an “assault-weapons ban.”
    First, knowledgeable observers know assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware, plus the ban seeks to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms. Second, it’s already completely illegal for criminals to buy firearms under any circumstances, so the proposed private-sale ban would only affect innocent citizens. And third, the Tiahart Amendment protects the innocent from government registries and abuse, so all three proposals, as noted above, have virtually no effect on stopping crime, but do crush freedoms Americans currently enjoy.
    A long wish list of other gun-freedom repeals have been previously announced by Brady, Obama and their supporters, but have not shown up in the candidate’s platform yet. See some of them here:
    23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
    24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
    25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
    26. Special Licensing of ranges.
    27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
    28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
    29. Banning Gun Shows.
    30. Banning of military reenactments.
    Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
    Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.
    Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including “air soft” and paintball).
    The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
    Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.
    The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

  13. Sterling, appreciated your extremely well written and well thought out post. Made it much easier to appreciate your position which I think must be the rational argument others would make if they were better able to articulate same. As someone who has never had real contact with guns and never really saw a need, your detailed post indeed affected some of my thoughts on the subject. I thank you.

    Our opinions have a final place to be aired – at the polls for the candidates of our choice. I’ve already voted. Make sure you all vote, too, because it’s clear you’ll want to cancel my vote out!

    Have a good one…

  14. Hey Carrie,

    Obama has said a lot of things so I would suggest you look at his actions instead. Specifically, all the anti-firearm legislation he supported in Ohio while a state Senator. In 1996 he is on the record as having filled out a candidate questionnaire where he was asked if he would support legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer was “Yes.”

    You can call Obama a kidder if you like but I’m taking the guy at his word.

    He is no friend to the firearm industry or firearms enthusiasts, never has been and he never will be.

  15. Quite simply, you folks attacking Obama are the very worst of what America has to offer. I have no doubt that many of you extremist right wingers get your news from the drug addled Rush Limbaugh or FOX News. You are not only ignorant, you are willfully ignorant.

    There are MILLIONS of us gun owners that will elect Obama in a landlside of EPIC proportions next week as a repudiation of the last eight years of lies, crimes and misery of the GW Bush years. Thank goodness that you folks will be pushed back onto the fringes of society where you belong.

    One can only hope that all of you that forced Dan out of his own company solely because he supports a candidate will have your chickens come home to roost with a vengeance.

  16. Vinnie, people who would vote for a candidate solely based on one issue are nuts anyway. If they think the country can survive another four years of current policy without coming apart at the seams then they’ll choose McCain and watch their standard of living (and ours) drop even more if he actually wins. None of these folks seem to be able to acknowledge that their real income is dropping, their net worth (stocks, real estate) have decreased while the rich are getting richer and McCain would continue tax breaks for companies like Exxon which just made another $14 billion profit off our sorry butts. Apparently all they care about is whether they can buy all the weapons they want, and whatever kind they want. I sure wish somebody would explain why anyone would want an Uzi anyway. Other than totally shredding the living thing it’s fired at, what’s the point? Or maybe that is the point. Real civilized.

    Read some of the posts above – Obama is a muslim, a liar, a communist, influenced by a sex pervert, blah blah blah. Pretty pathetic. If they actually believe this stuff it’s even worse. Obama’s a Harvard grad, went on scholarships, ran the law review, has written two books and that is very suspect to these people because he’s obviously intelligent and that scares them. McCain graduated fourth or fifth from the bottom at the Academy, which he got into on the strength of his father and grandfather’s accomplishments. I say this not to belittle the guy, it’s just the truth. I don’t think he’s lacking in intelligence, he just knew he didn’t have to work and he’d graduate anyway. McCain is no Boy Scout – hair trigger temper, adulterer, Keating Five, etc. No mention of that. He was a POW and that’s all they care about. Not a particularly good pilot, either – crashed two jets outside of combat which would have gotten anyone else bounced from the pilot ranks. Personally I think he’s a good man, flawed like we all are, but with no new ideas and that’s why I don’t think he’s the man to be our next president.

    They claim Obama is a “celebrity” and that’s bad. What do they think Sarah Palin has become, or Joe the Plumber (with his publicist and record deal??!!) are. McCain is boring and that’s good?

    This could go on and on. So….Instead of mud slinging why not vote on the issues, and not just one of them. If they still choose McCain just because he likes the NRA, this is America and it’s their right to be stupid. Let’s hope we all don’t suffer for it.

    Dan should get his company back. His board of directors should all be fired as wimps. I guess these people will defend America with the last bullets in their clips as long as it’s the America that thinks exactly like they do.

    Well, this should get them going.

  17. Ray,

    There are some people that think Obama is a Muslim, homosexual, or whatever. I do not. However, I want to keep this is an open forum, and I am not censoring the comments.

    As to being a communist, he may not be specifically a communist, which is a branch of socialism, but he certainly has socialist tendencies, which I disagree with.

    As to a liar, I can point to at least on blatant lie that he is running in radio commercials, claiming that the Republican ticket is opposed to ALL stem cell research, whereas the party platform is clear: Expand adult stem cell research, which is producing results, and a ban on creating or experimenting on embryos. The ad is a lie. And Obama approved it.

    Is McCain perfect? Of course not, and I have highlighted problems I have had with him. However, I feel Sen. Obama is worse on pretty much every issue I care about.

    On that note, I am not supporting McCain on a single issue. I support him because of differences on tax policies, “spreading the wealth,” right to life, national security, energy, and, of course, gun rights. I have chosen to focus on gun rights in this blog, but that is not the only issue I vote on.

    I don’t object to Obama’s status as a celebrity, it is just not a reason to vote for him, and there is an impression that some of the votes, although certainly not all, are based on celebrity.

    And seriously, what is the beef with Joe the Plumber? What I care about is Obama’s answer. It is not good when you “spread the wealth.” Joe didn’t search out Obama, he was in his front yard and Obama walked by.

    And as to my stocks and assets, they didn’t start dropping until the Democrats took over Congress…

  18. My dear Peter, if you actually believe that decades of deregulation of business by the GOP and the unprecedented lack of enforcement under GW Bush of financial markets can be laid at the feet of a Democratic Congress in power for a scant two years, what is the use of debating you about anything. It seems clear that anyone that could go that far to be willfully ignorant of history would be hard to enagage on the subject. Seriously, do you really believe that Democrats are the cause of this latest financial meltdown? If so, you are without a doubt an avid consumer of right wing propaganda. It simply is not true and I am happy that the vast majority of Americans know it is not true as well. They will demonstarte that fact next tuesday when they elect Barak Obama in a landslide.

    Also, America is now and always had socialistic policies. These policies have been introduced and supported by Republicans and Democrats throughout our history. I actually find it sad and mildly amusing that many on the right wing are running around screeching about Socialism when so many Republicans in our history have been major supporters of policies that are socialistic in nature.

    Lastly, your credibility really suffers when you try and lay the blame for the latest financial meltdown on the Democratic Party. There are, of course, some examples of Democrats being guilty of supporting the policies that have gotten us here, but to say that Democrats are the major players in this debacle is to deny reality and history.

    Anyway, Happy Halloween! I wish I had a dollar for every Sarah Palin and Barak Obama costume I will see tonight! Oy!

  19. We should be able to agree that both sides are stretching the truth when discussing their opposition’s positions. Plenty of that on the Republican side as well as Democratic so that’s a glass house no one should be tossing stones at.

    Absolutely Democrats have always had a soft spot towards social programs which address the issues of those among us who have the least. I don’t define that as political socialism, maybe you do. Seems like a Christian principle to me. Income tax and government programs inherently “spread the wealth” so that’s a weak argument. I have a much bigger problem with Exxon making $14 billion and Wall Street golden parachutes than giving government cheese to poor people. I’m all for capitalism – I own my business. But it’s not right for Exxon to continue to receive tax breaks. We taxpayers shouldn’t be paying twice for Wall Street greed, once to their big paychecks and again in our de-valued investments. I think it’s beyond disgusting that it’s come to that as the only way to save our economy.

    Joe the Plumber is having his 15 minutes of fame, no question about it.

    I respect your views, Peter. You are obviously a reasoned individual and have thought about where you stand. My objections were aimed towards the folks who post ridiculous, unsubstantiated garbage and wave the flag and their guns while doing it. I can’t respect an idiot, and in that respect their political party is irrelevant.

    Eight years of George Bush and his policies have brought us to our knees. Can’t blame Democrats for that, they only recently have controlled the house and even then caved to Bush…the Senate is pretty much 50/50. It’s time for a change. McCain has nothing new to offer. I’m ready for new ideas. I’m a registered independent and voted for Bush the first time aqround, not the second. If I thought McCain’s ideas were progressive and would put us in a better place I’d vote for him.

    And I’m still wondering why anyone needs an Uzi?!!!

  20. I agree that not all our financial woes are the direct result of the last 2 years of the Democrats in Congress. Some of it goes back to Carter and Clinton, and even Bill Clinton acknowledges that. And some of is rests with Republicans.

    I do have to ask, if this is the fault of “decades of deregulation of business by the GOP,” how have we managed to see the unprecedented growth of the last several decades? My point was that laying all of this on Bush is equally obtuse. As to the lack of regulation of the financial markets, Sen. McCain and others worked to fix that, and Sen. Obama and others blocked it.

    America has had socialist policies, but mainly starting in the early 20th century, not “always.” I oppose socialist programs no matter what party proposes them. Honestly, both candidates will probably expand socialist programs, but Sen Obama more so.

    As to the current financial crisis, there is blame to go around. Both parties, independents, financial institutions, and consumers all have their part in it. I am not trying to lay it all at the feet of the Democrats, But neither can it be laid entirely at the feet of Republicans. The other issue here is that a free, or semi-free, market will sometimes move down. This time, it didn’t even move down until the last quarter, but all we have heard for years is that Bush is killing the economy.

    As to GW being the face of modern Conservatism, you mistake Republicans and Conservatives. Bush may well be a Republican, but I do not consider him to be a true Conservative.


    Regarding the UZI, I can get into the whole debate regarding the true purpose of the Second Amendment, being able to overthrow a tyrannical government and all, but as to why you would want/need one?

    For protection: Probably not the best choice in most circumstances, but a viable one in others.

    For recreation. Maybe some don’t get it, and that’s fine, but I think an UZI would be a lot of fun to shoot.

    For history: The UZI, and other machine guns, have a lot of history, and some people enjoy collecting things like that.

    I’m sure that others have their reasons, but those are the ones I can think of. I know that there has been a lot of attention to the issue of late with the tragic death of a young person shooting one. It appears to be a case of negligence on the part of the instructor, and probably the father, which certainly saddens me, however, I think that the shooting sports community has done a very good job promoting safety so far, and this was an aberration.

    On the flip side, why does anyone need a pool? They have a higher rate of death or injury than firearms.

    While helping those who are down in a Christian principle, spreading the wealth through government taking it is not. Such government programs have historically not helped a person out of poverty, and only keep them in that situation.

  21. The Second Amendment is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. It being stretched to the point it has been is my problem. Protection of one’s self and one’s property is legit in my view, so is hunting although personally I wouldn’t shoot a living thing for sport. Skeet shooting, cool. Target range, cool. But unlicensed and unregistered guns,not cool. I live in the Chicago area and I can buy a gun off the street in under 30 minutes if I want, which is exactly what the gang bangers do. There are probably more guns in this country than people and the gun lobby has fought regulation and licensing tooth and nail. Hollow point bullets for non police and military, ridiculous. See what I mean?

    I also don’t know why everyone is so worked up over government programs. Social programs are not all welfare. I have a good friend who’s a vet, Viet Nam era, and he lost his job of 15 years and ran out of money looking for another. Wound up living in his car. The program that put him into a housing facility while he got his feet back under him is a government one. He still makes next to nothing and gets his health care now at the VA hospital. I have another friend who’s legally blind and gets assistance in getting from place to place, gets meals on wheels, etc. These are all social programs. Six generation welfare is over because there isn’t enough money any more. Each state regulates welfare as it sees fit and most now revolve around children’s services and job training. Tricky subject. But if, in each case, the government – federal, state, or local – doesn’t assist these people who will? Are we all to “adopt” a needy person?

    Well, we have strayed far from the subject of Mr. Cooper’s loss of his company, which as a business owner myself I find repulsive. Apparently gunowners can’t agree to disagree with anyone. That’s pretty sad when you consider tolerance is a two way street.


  22. Ray, I’m not going to comment on everything you had to say, but I do feel like you should at least be properly informed about the topic of “hollow point bullets.” I know it is a bit of a tangent, but you seem to base your argument about “common sense” gun control on a topic about which you simply do not have the facts.

    Everything you probably think you know about these bullets is based on incorrect reporting, and anti-gun scare-tactics. The fact of the matter is “hollow points”, which are more accurately referred to as “controlled expansion rounds”, are actually an attempt to make firearms both safer and more effective at the same time. Why do you think police use them? (The military as a general rule does not, due to conventions of warfare.)

    They were designed so that a smaller, lower power round would deliver the same “stopping power” as a full-power round. When the bullet hits a surface, it expands. This causes it to be more effective at neutralizing a threat, while at the same time lessening the chance of over-penetration and ricochet. The point is to deliver the same performance as a round with higher power, with less of a chance of collateral damage and injury to innocents. Hollow point bullets are not any more “powerful” than other rounds… in fact they are generally less capable of piercing body armor than their standard (FMJ) counterparts.

    It always bothers me when people are vocal about something such as gun control without doing at least the basic research. I’m not saying you don’t have the right to support more stringent controls on weapons, but it would serve you best to get the facts first.

  23. Had Cooper not resigned, the value of the Copper company and the value of used Cooper firearms would have fallen dramatically.

    As gun owners, we are like former slaves or former Nazi concentration camp victims.
    We have been been abused so badly over the last 72 years by Democrats, that we must militantly oppose a firearms manufacturer that supports the enemy with profits from us.

    The same thing would happen to Cooper if he ran a black night club and then gave money to the KKK.

    No one would have a sense of humor and accept it.

  24. Greg, I stand corrected…forgot I was talking to experts here! To be more specific, I think exploding ammunition (frangible and devastator types) have no place in civilian hands.

  25. Ray, I didn’t really intend to go on such a tangent, but while we’re out there, let’s discuss exploding ammunition. Frangible bullets are also used for “safety rounds” (see ICC Frangible and Glaser Safety Slug for some examples.)

    Bullets that contain actual explosive compounds are already highly restricted or illegal in many states. So-called “devastator” exploding rounds are nothing more than novelty items… they are no more “deadly” than any other round.

  26. You know, Greg, you’re right. It’s not the objects (guns, bullets etc) that are the real problem, it’s the access to them by anyone and everyone that creates the problems for those who are responsible gun owners and the public in general. And I guess if there was an easy way to resolve how to keep everyone’s Second Amendment rights intact while keeping the criminal element from having them someone would have implemented it already. Denying everyone their rights is wrong, but so is allowing any gangbanger to have one. No easy answers. The Patriot Act restricts many of the individual rights we enjoyed prior to 9/11 in the name of the greater good. Maybe we need a similar mindset on weapons.

  27. You know, Greg, you’re right. It’s not the objects (guns, bullets etc) that are the real problem, it’s the access to them by anyone and everyone that creates the problems for those who are responsible gun owners and the public in general. And I guess if there was an easy way to resolve how to keep everyone’s Second Amendment rights intact while keeping the criminal element from having them someone would have implemented it already. The Patriot Act restricts many of the individual rights we enjoyed prior to 9/11 in the name of the greater good. Maybe we need a similar mindset on weapons.

  28. I believe that Mr. Cooper should have kept the company out of his donations and realized that what he was doing by donating to someone who has a very disturbing record as Obama does on 2nd ammendment issues would cast bad light on the company. It is no different than a celebrity saying they support someone as a private citizen…they know full well it will impact thier fans and if there intent was to do it as a private citizen, they’d do it quietly and not make it a media event.
    Anyone who does something that they know or suspect will become public, and cause or potentially cause issue or bring bad press on them, should think twice before doing it. In this case, it could and did impact the company.
    He had to know his actions would be viewed badly by sportsman and it is their voice, base on his action that brought this on. Anyone who blames anyone else needs to reassess their thoughts. Had Obama had a decent record on gun rights…not just his words…then the issue probably wouldn’t be what it is. Sara Palin has a fine NRA record so the GOP ticket was far stronger on guns rights than the DEM.
    I applaud Cooper for asking him to step down and for him taking responsibility and stepping down rather than bring a fine company down for his actions.
    Hopefully this will pass and the company can continue to make fine custom guns. It will take time and the media will continue to use this as a negitive on responsible gun owners, manufacturers and others as evidenced by people on this forum who’ve blamed cooper, the NRA and others.
    As for Obama, it’s a done deal. I’ll reserve my judgement of the man based on his actions over the next four years and vote again for the person I feel best fits my thoughts and feelings and will protect my rights as a citizen of the US, particularly my 2nd Ammendment rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>