Bleh. I need to stop writing such long responses, or face having to respond to equally long response-responses. Anywise...
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(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]