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)]

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?