All, I was shocked and appalled to find Dan Cooper of Cooper firearms endorsing Obama. I have two of his rifles, a M22 Phoenix in .308 and a new Classic in .22LR. Haven't even scoped the .22 yet. Those will be my last. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm Like the Dixie Chicks, Jim Zumbo and others he will find that we all have the right to speak out in what we believe but this is simply throwing sand in the face of your products demographic. I feel sorry for his employees.
Ok, I'll bite. What demographic would that be...hunters? People who buy high end bolt guns? Montanans? I may be missing something, but I don't see how contributing to one of two candidates running for office under a two party system is akin to the Dixie Chicks' statements or 'throwing sand'.
With all due respect, another citizen has a political viewpoint different than yours (for whatever reason) and so you feel the need to cut ties with them all together?
that's the beauty of the system. it's his prerogative to take his business where he pleases, and if a business owner decides to express political views, he can expect people to disagree with him and take their business elsewhere if it means that much to them.
Yup, it's also his prerogative to shoot himself in the foot or possibly have his weapons on the Obama hit list. I wished I were a snake oil salesman in his neck of the woods, Id own a large chunk of Cooper by now.
Yes. I have lots of other options for a high end rifles. It's my money and I'll spend it as I want. Just like I won't buy another Dixie Chicks song (OK, I'll have to admit I never did in the first place but still). He believes in what Obama is selling and Obama has a documented track record against his industry and one I support. With his actions he has come out in support of Senator Obama, who I believe will have a significant impact on my 2nd amendment rights should he become president through his appointment of Supreme Court justices that will decide what the Constitution means. You that don't believe so, watch and learn. Virtually the only thing I can do to show people the consequences of their action is to vote with my wallet and I am going to do so. Actions have consequences.
I agree with Pugs OP. While Cooper can make whatever campaign contributions he wants, it is likely that endorsing Obama is counterproductive to his business. Maybe his personal beliefs about what ever it is that encouraged him to vote for Obama out weigh the risk his business takes if Obama is elected, but thats a personal decision. It would still seem that he is working against his own interestes however as a gun manufacturer endorsing a candidate who may start another round of gun grabbing.
It's genius. With gunsmiths lobbying for Obama, he'll be a lot more likely to overlook them during his administration. Think of the big picture.
I think that the big picture is a ban on semi-automatic rifles. What kind of impact would that have on Cooper's market share?
How about when they decide to ban those hi-powered sniper rifles? Those in fact, are his business. Cooper builds high quality single shot rifles for the most part. They only introduced a center-fire repeater this year. How about when they introduce more taxes on ammunition and components? All of these things have been proposed by various Democrats at State and Local level and would have a very real affect.
This is true ... and those of you who aren't involved "in the fight" either in the past or currently from a legislative standpoint (and I am) -- just simply don't know what you're talking about ... as bolt guns & their associated common hunting ammunition now a.k.a. "sniper ammo" are becoming the new "plastic guns" and "cop-killer bullets" in the next round of anti-gun hysteria on a policy/political level. Kissing up to the opposition and hoping they will leave you "alone" is never a "winning" strategy. You move a little toward "their" position and they NEVER move toward yours ... as they will take everything they can get from you and spit in your face come election time. This is not supposition -- this is experience, and first hand, to boot. And we are talkin' firearms & the 2nd here ... our basic rights ... not land use questions and storm water runoff. Smith & Wesson tried this a few years ago -- kissing up -- and it didn't work. They lost a HUGE portion of their customer base and have just been getting it back over the past few years when ownership returned to American hands. Ruger flirted w/ the same thoughts a little more than a decade back -- it didn't work for them, either. Zumbo -- I don't know WHAT he was thinking, as AR's are now front & center @ the Nationals at Camp Perry (and they were when he made his stupid comments) . They ARE the standard on the firing line in these post .30-06/7.62mm NATO days ... Oh yeah, Zumbo lost his editorial position w/ Outdoor Life and lost his TV program on the Outdoor Channel. It's a free country, but like Pugs said: actions have consequenses.
Do not fret Airwarriors. The repercussions of treason were hard and fast: "In response to the recent article highlighting Dan Cooper’s personal political donations, the board of directors, shareholders and employees of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc would like to issue the following statement. The employees, shareholders and board of directors of Cooper Firearms of Montana do not share the personal political views of Dan Cooper. Although we all believe everyone has a right to vote and donate as they see fit, it has become apparent that the fallout may affect more than just Mr. Cooper. It may also affect the employees and the shareholders of Cooper Firearms. The board of directors has asked Mr. Cooper to resign as President of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc. Daily operations will continue with the competent staff currently in place in Stevensville, MT producing the finest, most accurate rifles money can buy. Dan Cooper has spent all of his working life producing the highest quality rifles built here in the USA. He started with nothing but the American Dream and built that into firearms company anyone would be proud of. We firmly believe Dan stands by the 2nd amendment. We wish him all of the best in his future pursuits."
i don't know how i feel about a guy getting the shaft from a company with his name on it for speaking his mind, but i guess it's not very fair for the shareholders and employees to have to pay for the backlash from him airing his political thoughts. everything has its consequences.
I have no problem w/boycotting products based on the behavior/beliefs of the owners. That's like Obama coming out and saying he's a vegetarian, and me saying I support him- and I'm a kitchen manager at a fine dining STEAK HOUSE. It just doesn't add up. Did Mr. Cooper really think that it would go over well with his customers to announce his support of BO? Surely not. And as far as the board letting him go, that's a business decision. Regardless of the election, if your CEO brings negative feelings towards the company because of things he has said/done, it's over. Great business decision on their part.
Actually, its nothing like that at all. The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right which relies on nobody's choice...being a vegetarian on the other hand is stupid.
To a lot of people on left a scoped 7.62 bolt-action rifle is a sniper rifle and the round it shoots is an armor piercing round. Makes no difference why they think that. Hidden agenda or lack of understanding makes no difference. Believe it.
The same people that think a semi-automatic M-4 is an "assault rifle" Oh, a name? How about Rep James Moran (D) of VA? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-654 when you're categorizing a weapon as evil simply because the diameter of the bullet you're showing a remarkable lack of common sense. another? How about Ted Kennedy's (D) sponsorship of H.R. 654? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP02619: Where he wants to ban "a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.'' Gee, that sounds an awful like the Barnes TSX that I use as the primary hunting bullet in my 7mm-08.... You're a smart guy Flash, don't be naive. It's about control, not guns.
While I don't believe that prohibition of specific calibers is usually effective, I can see the reasoning behind it. I see no reason for a regular civilian to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, same with a machine gun. And even the current administration does not consider them regular/normal weapons: Iranian Sniper Rifles Of course, all someone would have to do is make a .495 caliber sniper rifle to get around it. Again, problematic, but I can see the point. I particularly see the problem of how to determine which bullets would be 'armor-piercing' and what that armor actually is. Either way, I don't see them passing too much 'gun' control legislation, it is just not a winner for Democrats.
