censorship, of a sort

[jrtom]

http://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.

Comments

[linoge (from livejournal.com)]

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.

[BREAK - CONTINUED]

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Again, taken in order.

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...

[linoge (from livejournal.com)]

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?

[BREAK - CONTINUED]

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Re: my phrase "censorship, of a sort": agree to disagree, agreed. :)

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?