If you are saying that it is "censorship, of a sort", you are saying that is censorship - just one of the many varieties/forms possible. This statement is, in and of itself, erroneous. Cooper Firearms did not supress Dan Cooper's statements. They did not suppress him. They did not try and expunge any record. They did not infringe upon his freedom to express himself. In fact, as a person, the company as a whole seems to be supporting him through these times. However, said company disagrees with his political stance, and further disagrees with him costing its and its employees money. Punishment/repercussions/consequences are entirely separate and disjoint concepts from censorship, and if that is what you meant, that is what you should have said.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(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]