![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jrtomhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
This is a fairly innocuous article, talking about the fact that Obama's been having more success getting money from the US business community as a whole. It refers to (and quotes) one Dan Cooper:
Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He's the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.
Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.
This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That's on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention.
If you read through to the comments, they'll lead you here:
http://www.cooperfirearms.com/
In case the message on the front page doesn't stay up long, here it is in its entirety:
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.
This decision was apparently made in response to threats of boycotting, outlined here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm
Scared people sometimes do crappy things; I get that. And it seems likely that the BoD of Cooper Firearms was worried about their company going under, so they threw the company's founder under (the bus) instead.
But seriously, this is bullshit. This is knuckling under to what is, in essence, a political attack.
I don't know if Cooper has standing to sue or not--it seems likely he holds stock in the company--but I suspect that Cooper Firearms is not going to come out of this any better for having thrown out their own founder.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Guns
Date: 30 October 2008 22:46 (UTC)At least the Republicans are intellectually coherent. The Democrats are all over the map these days.
Re: Guns
Date: 30 October 2008 22:50 (UTC)And who do you mean by "the Republicans", for that matter? You can't possibly be talking about McCain's campaign, which has been nothing but all over the map for months.
Re: Guns
Date: 30 October 2008 22:55 (UTC)Re: Guns
Date: 30 October 2008 23:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30 October 2008 23:34 (UTC)The Cooper Firearms company did not squelch his right to free speech. They did not tell him he had to stop supporting Obama. They did not infringe on his God-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights. Instead, the company did what it would do when confronted with any employee who is about to cost said company potentially copious amounts of money - they asked him to leave.
Perfectly understandable, that.
Consider this alternative: A high-ranking official within the NAACP comes forward and professes to having donated a substantial amount of money to the KKK. What, exactly, do you think would happen next?
And would those actions be censorship? Or "bullshit"? Or "knuckling under"? Far from it.
Or, even beter, what if Dan himself had professed to supporting the KKK? Would that change the situation / your opinion?
As the line goes, "You cannot kneel down in the middle of a highway and live to tell about it, son." Every action has a consequence, a repercussion, a price, and Dan really should have thought more about what the results would be if he supported a rabidly anti-rights Presidential candidate.
Of course, I am speaking as one of those people who promised to boycott Cooper Firearms so long as Dan was there (http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2008/10/turncoat.html), so you will probably discard my opinions immediately.
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 00:14 (UTC)As I said in the title: "censorship, of a sort". I agree that it's not censorship per se. It is, however, a case of being punished for exercise of free speech.
"Perfectly understandable", you say. Let's say you founded a company that makes ultrasound machines. Let's further suppose that you are strongly pro-life, donate money to the McCain campaign, and are subsequently interviewed about this support. Finally, let's suppose that your company starts getting threats from pro-choice doctors to stop buying your ultrasound machines unless they fire you, so they fire you.
Would such an action also be 'perfectly understandable', in your view? I promise you, even though I am pro-choice and definitely not a McCain supporter, I'd be pissed as hell on your behalf if that had happened to you, and if I'd found that story instead of Cooper's, I'd have posted it here.
Your analogy is cute, but not really relevant. The KKK is, not to put too fine a point on it, a domestic terrorist organization. And supporting the KKK does not seem to be consistent with the goals of the NAACP _as an organization_. Contrariwise, there _are_ a number of people that are gun owners and users that support Obama and his policies.
"What if Dan himself had professed to supporting the KKK?" Heck, why not add a few more things on there? Make him a serial killer. Make him a professed hater of kittens, Mom, and apple pie, and an inveterate burner of flags.
That's a different situation, and I think that it should have been handled differently.
"You cannot kneel down...": so, as one of the people that contacted the company and promised (emptily, as you weren't in the market for one of their guns) to boycott them, you've just put yourself in that analogy as the driver of a car on that highway, and specifically as someone who apparently believes that kneeling in the middle of a highway is a death sentence...you're going to run him down.
Aren't analogies fun?
Dan may well have thought through his decision and its likely consequences. Maybe he was willing to take the risk that there were enough reflexive jerks out there to get him canned. You don't know any more on that subject than I do.
"Rabidly anti-rights"? This here is Obama's actual position as a candidate: http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf
I followed some of your links off the post you referenced above. I'd say that he's not 'anti-rights', he simply disagrees with you as to the degree of freedom with which some rights ought to be able to be exercised. Nor is he 'rabid' about anything, as far as I know.
I don't claim that there's a simple decision for cases like these. I've been chewing on a similar situation for years: someone whose work I admire has some political views that I strongly disagree with, and I've considered boycotting them as a result. But I'm not calling a witch hunt on that person regardless of my eventual decision.
You are welcome to take whatever position you like regarding Obama's candidacy, or Cooper's advocacy of it. But I do not believe that Cooper Firearms' board of directors' decision was the honorable one.
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 01:12 (UTC)Again, I will repeat my previous comment of "perfectly understandable" in reference to your hypothetical situation. Companies are in the business of making money. Period. Full stop. If an employee is costing a company money instead of making that company money, it would be perfectly understandable, rational, and logical for that company to remove said employee. It would suck to be me, for certain, but I made my bed, and eventually it would be my turn to lie in it.
Simply put, supporting Obama is not consistent with the goals of a firearm manufacturer. As mentioned in my links, Obama is intent on banning ammunition capable of penetrating any armor. This ban would effectively eliminate 90% of the calibers Cooper Firearms builds for, if not all of them. That would pretty much put the company out of the business of making firearms. The same end result would occur with Obama's proposed $0.05 tax per round (if people are paying that much for ammunition, they sure as hell will not have money for beautiful, but massively expensive, firearms), if someone used a Cooper firearm to murder someone else (Obama opposed legislation protecting firearms companies from civil suits in that case), etc. etc. etc. Just because some firearm owners/manfucaturers/users support Obama does not mean it is consistent with firearm use/manufacture, but only that some people may not care about their firearms, may not be as aware of the situation, or prioritize other things higher.
KKK, at its very roots, is intent upon depriving a certain group of individuals of their rights. In the same vein, Obama and Biden both have already professed, and demonstrated, a driving desire to deprive another (often overlapping) group of individuals of their rights. Different sets of rights are in play, to be certain, but how is one better than the other? Simply put, they are not.
If you want to be accurate, in that analogy, I am not the driver. After a fashion, Dan is the driver, his corporation is the man in the road, and we, disgruntled gun owners are the car. Simply put, we were not going to give money to a man (by way of his corporation) who has used profits from other sales to help fund another man intent on restricting, regulating, and controlling my rights out of existence. The good news to come out of the situation is that the company beat Dan to the punch, and avoided being run over by public outcry.
Unfortunately, Obama's "actual" stance on firearms is not known to anyone, even himself it would seem: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/16/22186/4153 , http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/06/blatant-hypocrite-but-wheres-media-on.html , http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/obama-biden/48580-biden-gun-control-hypocrite.html , etc. The list goes on. Basically, at this point, his words today contradict his words and actions yesterday. Me, I am going with what he has done in the past versus what he is vacuously promising to do in the future.
[BREAK - CONTINUED]
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 17:17 (UTC)I stand by my phrasing: "censorship, of a sort". A common phrase used to describe this situation is the "chilling effect". I agree that Cooper Firearms has not suppressed his statements (although I think that they might have if they could have, but that's a separate issue). But by firing him, they have discouraged both Dan (in the future) and others from exercising their rights to free speech--if it is speech that gun owners (or the gun lobby) don't like, and that the gun lobby is in a position to punish. So I disagree that in this context that 'punishment for speech' and 'censorship of speech' are entirely disjoint.
I respect your stated position that you would feel the same way if it were you getting fired. I'm not certain that I believe that you would actually feel this way if it really happened, but I respect the fact that you said it.
"Supporting Obama is not consistent with the goals of a firearm manufacturer" is clearly false: Dan Cooper supports Obama, and he manufactures firearms. Something to consider: he may have a better idea of the actual consequences to the firearms industry (in general and/or for his own company) of Obama's proposals than you do: he runs such a business.
Are you seriously suggesting that $0.05/bullet is enough to keep someone from buying a firearm that would cost a few hundred dollars? Seems like you'd have to fire off several hundred rounds a day in order for that cost difference to make itself felt.
Your suggestion that being lynched, as a "deprivation of rights", is equivalent to not being able to buy certain types of ammunition or firearms is ridiculous and reprehensible. I don't say this often, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself for this, and I'm sorry that you don't appear to be.
It seems to me that you're twisting your use of the "man in the highway" analogy away from the interpretation indicated by your previous use: read your own words from your first post. I won't debate this analogy further.
I don't have a strong interest in Obama's gun control policies; I don't currently own any firearms, although I don't rule out doing so in the future, and I have seen no indication that he has any plans that would restrict me from doing anything that I would choose to do. I acknowledge that you may have different priorities in that regard, and are probably better informed than I on some things that he's said and done.
continued in the next...
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 23:26 (UTC)We are going to have to agree to disagree on your use of the word "censorship". To me (and, apparently, the dictionary), censorship implies a forced suppression of one's words. Punishment could serve as an encouragement to not do something, but it does not force anything. Censorship would be the choice of the board. Acting in a silencing fashion to punishment would be the choice of Mr. Cooper. Substantial difference, that.
As for the hypothetical again, I am one who has, through experience, learned how words can cost you. The question becomes whether or not you are willing to stand by your words in the face of the cost. If I believed in McCain more than I believed in my paycheck, I would walk away from the company with next-to-no ill will.
That Dan Cooper supports Obama does not, necessarily, make it consistent with the goals of firearm manufacturers as a whole. Suffice to say, he is something of an outlier on that point. People jump off bridges every year, but it is relatively safe to say that doing so is not consistent with the goals of humans (lemmings, on the other hand...). And something else to consider: maybe he puts the other aspects of Obama's possible Presidency over the aspects of firearm manufacturer/ownership. Or maybe he is willing to take the cut. As you say elsewhere, we do not know.
Since you are not a shooter, you might not know this, but suffice to say that it is not uncommon for firearm enthusiasts to go through hundreds of rounds a weekend. This is one particular hobby that requires incessant practice. For instance, I just purchased 2000 rounds of ammo myself - under Obama's proposed legislation, that purchase would have cost me $100 more than it did - at *least* (ammunition serialization is a monumentally expensive proposition). Given that ammunition prices have been steadily increasing over the past few years, people's gun-related budgets are already stretching thin. A few hundred dollars less in that account would matter signficantly when Cooper Firearms rifles cost multiple thousand dollars (not just hundreds).
Deprivation of one's right to life is the same as deprivation of one's right to defend one's life, semantically and logically. To see the other side of the coin, you should be ashamed that you consider one inherent right to be somehow more important than another. Which is higher on your food chain? The First or the Fifth?
If you honestly think that Obama's policies would not restrict you from purchasing whatever firearm you choose, you have either not beeng paying attention, or are horribly mistaken. He is against "assault weapons" - firearms that are no different from common hunting rifles, except for aesthetic additions. He is against handguns. He is against people using firearms in self-defense. He is against people being able to buy more than one firearm a month. I do not know about your desires, but many firearm owners are interested in one, some, or all of those items. What of them?
[BREAK - CONTINUED]
(no subject)
Date: 3 November 2008 06:29 (UTC)I doubt that you would harbor "next-to-no ill will" in such a circumstance, even if you felt that it was worth it, but that's a minor point at best. I still respect your stated position nonetheless.
Agreed that we don't know Cooper's priorities or motivations--or, really, what the actual effects of Obama's policies on gun manufacturers might be.
I accept that some firearms enthusiasts shoot as much as you say. But how much did that 2000 rounds cost you in the first place? If it's at least as much as the $100 additional hypothesized cost (that is, if the surcharge no more than doubles the cost, say), then it seems to me that this is a moderately expensive hobby anyway. Certainly if one is in the position to spend a few thousand on a gun, $100 more every few months (say) is still annoying but it doesn't seem like a make-or-break kind of thing.
"Deprivation of one's right to life is the same as deprivation of one's right to defend one's life". I disagree--and that's a strawman anyway.
(1) We do have police forces. Sometimes they even come when you call. I do not claim that
(2) No one is proposing to deprive you of your _right_ to defend your life. The most that anyone is proposing, as far as I can tell, is that some _tools_ for defending your life should be either more expensive in quantity, or in some cases unavailable.
I do not agree that I should be ashamed that I consider one inherent right to be more important than another. Without the rights to "life [and] liberty", all else is irrelevant (and yes, I know that's not from the Bill of Rights, but I assume my point is taken nonetheless).
(For the record, the First Amendment is slightly higher on my list than the Fifth--and both are significantly higher than the Third, say. If you would like to discuss this subtopic, let's take it to another forum (email or a new blog posting would be fine).)
You left out a third option: if I ever buy a firearm, I doubt that I'll feel constrained by any proposed restriction because my needs are likely to be pretty simple. I'm unlikely to carry a gun with me on a regular basis, and for home defense, I'm told that a shotgun is still probably the best bet--and I haven't heard any _solid_ evidence that anyone's talking about banning those.
Just curious: what other issues are of importance to you? If we were to assume that McCain's and Obama's gun policies were likely to be the same, how would you vote?
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 01:12 (UTC)I have an inherent right to self-defense. Obama would infringe upon that, not only by limiting the tools available to me, but also by simply legislating that I do not have that right. I have an inherent, Constitutionally-protected, and Supreme-Court-affirmed right to own and keep commonly-used firearms. Obama's past support of handgun bans and current plans for an "assault weapon" ban would infringe on that right. Obama supported the District of Columbia total firearm ban (before he opposed it... after the Supreme Court ruling, I would point out). That obviously infringed on rights. You are right - he does disagree with me as to the degree of freedom with some rights ought to be able to be exercised... he would see to it that some rights have no degrees of freedom.
Whether you see it or not, there was no "witch hunt" here. This was not McCarthyism. This was not us trying to force our opinions down the throat of Cooper Firearms or Dan Cooper himself. This was one man taking a stance, us disagreeing with him, and then promising not to support him or his stances. What would you rather us do - ignore someone who was conspiring with someone else to subvert our rights? Be serious. Or maybe you would rather we shopped somewhere else, but not informed Cooper Firearms as to why? Sorry, but I believe in being upfront and honest with people, and if they have done something to cause me to avoid them, I will certainly let them know why. If they want to fix the problem, more power to them. If not, that is their choice, and their loss (especially in this case).
I honestly canont see a more honorable course of action for the Cooper Firearms' board of directors to take. They have to take into consideration the safety and future of their corporation and employees, and if one particular employee has become a political and financial liability, that one individual cannot outweigh the rest. This, indeed, is a rarity where honor, expediency, and logic all converge on the same answer - the one the board of directors took.
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 17:46 (UTC)Can you describe to me a scenario in which you would require for your self-defense a gun or bullet which, in your own opinion, Obama's intended policies would deny to you? This is an honest and serious question, and I hope you'll do me the courtesy of an answer.
I understand that your position, and the action that you took, was principled, even if I disagree with some of the assumptions on which your principles are based. I don't have a problem with you telling Cooper Firearms that even if you were in the market for a firearm such as those that they sell that you would not buy it from them.
(I do wonder whether you, and the others like you, have considered the possible long-term effects on Cooper Firearms of your public assault on them, though--or even because--it was successful. If you'll forgive the possibly unfortunate, if apropos, phrase, it seems to me that you may have shot first and left the questions, if any, to later.)
I _do_ have a problem, as I said, with Cooper's board of directors making the decision that they did. They could have issued a statement disavowing his words, and expressing the hope that Cooper's current and potential future customers would base their buying decisions based on the quality of their products. They could have asked Cooper to make a statement about why he felt that it was reasonable for him to support Obama given what you and others have seen as the dangers to the gun industry and to gun owners' rights. And so on. Yes, there was a risk to their business. There's also a risk to their business from firing their founder; I don't agree with your implicit assumption that Cooper _had_ become a liability, as I've seen just as many posts from people saying "well, I'm not going to buy from Cooper Firearms now that they've fired Cooper".
But I maintain that they failed on these points of honor: they chose to take an action which appears to have denied loyalty, and which will tend to produce a chilling effect on certain kinds of free speech. I believe that it is important not only that the right to free speech exists, but that people feel free to exercise it.
A couple of concluding statements:
First, I think it's important to recognize that neither you nor I has the whole story here. We don't know what went on in that boardroom--did he resign of his own free will or was he forced out? what proposals were floated? etc. There's a follow-up article from USA Today which has a couple of interesting quotes:
So it may have been his call--or maybe this is damage control. Neither of us can say for certain.
the article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm
Second: I want to thank you for having taken the time to respond here. Most of my friends share most of my political beliefs, and I like to be exposed to different perspectives. It's an aspect of my character that I'm glad that both Obama and McCain seem to share.
(no subject)
Date: 31 October 2008 23:37 (UTC)Obama's policies would deny me the capability of carrying a firearm anywhere outside of my home (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/10/31/obama-on-concealed-carry-2/). This is something I do on a daily basis. Yet, if I or other individuals could not, incidents like this: http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080828/NEWS/80828002 could have ended very differently. For further examples, I need only point you here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html . Obama is against me using a firearm even *in my own home* for self defense - what if someone larger than me were to break into my house? I certainly cannot overpower him... The possibilities are, quite literally, endless.
Unfortunately, Dan Cooper spoke the words he did as the President of Cooper Firearms. He did not speak them as a generic, general, every-day citizen, and if he had, my reaction may have been markedly different. Instead, he spoke as the leader of a company, a company that manufactures just the thing Obama is interested in eliminating. There is simply no way the company could have adequately distanced themselves from him and his words short of doing what they did. He was the President of that company - he *was*, for all intents and purposes, that company. He spoke on behalf of that company, from the only position from which you can actually do that. And, at that point, his words became inextricably tied with the company... unless he was no longer part of it. And so it happened.
As for counts, you obviously travel in different circles on the internet than I do, but using Google's Blogsearch, I would disagree with you, slightly.
Dan Cooper had and still has the right to say whatever his little heart desires. If he feels less free to express those comments, that would be his choice, not mine, and not Cooper Firearm's. In fact, that he appears to continue to support Obama seems to indicate that he not only recognizes that he still (and always did) has that right, but also that he is comfortable with still exercising it.
No worries for the responses. Thank you for being a lot more reasonable about the topics of firearms and rights than some people would and have in the past. And if you ever need any advice concerning your possible future purchase, feel free to drop me or any of my fellow gunbloggers a line.
(no subject)
Date: 3 November 2008 06:55 (UTC)(If you want to talk about the possible utility of people being able to overthrow the US government if it becomes completely corrupt, that's a different discussion.)
I read the "snowflakes in hell" post and the comments. It appears that there's some disagreement on what he was saying there; at least one person seems to think that he supports banning laws which regulate concealed carry. I'd have to look into it more.
As to your home defense example: one can always come up with a scenario in which you can't successfully defend your house regardless of what tools or abilities you have (e.g., against coordinated military attack).
In all seriousness, the tools that I currently prefer for home defense are edged weapons or a baseball bat. Anyone that I encounter in the course of defending my house is going to be at close quarters, in which a gun may not be the best tool...and I've got three small children that I wouldn't want to shoot accidentally. And, to be honest, I wouldn't want to shoot an intruder unless I absolutely had to...and I would hate to do _that_ accidentally, too. It's true that guns have a psychological effect. But so does a baseball bat--and I'm a lot less likely to hesitate to _use_ a baseball bat, so for me it's a better option for effectiveness' sake.
I believe that what I proposed that Cooper Firearms' board could have said would have constituted adequate distancing. Again, I think we may need to agree to disagree.
"If he feels less free to express those comments, that would be his choice, not mine..."
Let me ask you this: what, exactly, was your motivation in contacting Cooper Firearms and letting them know that they'd better fire him if they ever wanted your business? What were you trying to accomplish?
Were you trying to punish him? Or silence him?
Thanks again for your comments and responses; you've certainly given me some things to think about (and vice versa, I hope). I hope that you still consider me to have been reasonable given my comments above (for the record, I wasn't trying to be provocative, but there are some thorny questions in these matters). :) And I appreciate your offer of assistance.