I heard on the radio yesterday, that Dan Cooper, president and owner of Cooper Arms, is supporting Obama. I can't imagine how a gun manufacturer or any gun owner with a brain larger than #9 shot, could support Obama. There was also talk of a boycott. I hope his business suffers for this stupidity.

If the report is true, so do I! If gun owners and manufacturers are not of the same mind on this topic, who the heck is?

unfortunatly it is true;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

He has been asked to resign after recieving 36000 emails,according to what I have read on another site;
http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=117897&an=0&page=0#Post117897

More stuff:

http://huntersandshooters.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Cooper Shown the Door -- News release

In response to the recent article highlighting Dan Cooperʼs 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.

I just emailed him myself. This is the stupidest thing I've heard of since the idiot who was running Smith & Wesson at the time caved in to the Clinton administration. They were lucky to survive and still be in business.
Jim

I don't know Dan's motives, but many industries give donations to both parties in a race(no, I haven't heard that he gave anything to McCain). That way they have influence with who ever wins. Personally I'm not Machiavellian enough to bring myself to agree with that.

I read this in the local Spokane paper a few days ago! It seems he was removed rather quickly, once his Obama donation(s) was made public.

The article I read was the same as the one Chris posted above!

He must have felt he could slip this one by!

I've a Cooper JSR(Jackson Squirrel Rifle) in 17Hmr, top 'o the rimfires in all ways. I make it listen to Glenn Beck and Michael Savage.

How it works with Canadian companies and corporations ---donations are published---it seems that political donations are just a cost of doing business, usually going to the major parties.

Firing an employee, director or executive of a company for making a political donation would heap so much opprobrium on a company that it would provide a different result from that intended at Cooper Arms.

I wouldn't be fired for supporting financially pro-gun organizations and activities, as I do. Why would Cooper lose his job for doing what tens of millions of Americans have done as responsible contributers in a democratic society?

His firing was at the top of the news in Canada.

Suppose the president of the NAACP made a donation to the Ku Klux Klan PAC. His board and members of the NAACP would demand he resign and I expect he would comply.

Suppose a Ku Klux Klan member that worked for UPS showed up at a KKK rally in his UPS uniform and did a filmed interview as a KKK member in front of his brown UPS truck. UPS would fire him.

The speech amendment protects our speech from government penalties, not our bosses.

Best,

Mike

On another forum, a person called the company to complain that he thought the firing was unjustified (although he thought it was justified). The gal on the phone told him (He won't be far away!). Sounds like a trick to keep sales from tanking.

Now anyone can vote for anyone they wish, but the public can use any justification they wish for their actions. We have fought against the gun grabbers and socialists all my life. The fight goes on.

"Suppose the president of the NAACP made a donation to the Ku Klux Klan PAC... "


....or Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, donated to McCain?

Quote:
"Firing an employee, director or executive of a company for making a political donation would heap so much opprobrium on a company that it would provide a different result from that intended at Cooper Arms."

Perhaps you don't remember what happened at Smith & Wesson after that fool they had for a President at that time caved in to the Clinton Administration demands on "gun control".
There was a mass boycott by consumers and firearms shops were relinquishing there S&W dealerships. Only after S&W got rid of him and recanted their position did their sales come back.
Just who do you think will make up for lost sales at Cooper? Left wing liberal gun grabbers?
Jim

Post deleted by italiansxs This post was a duplicate of the one above.
Jim

Donating to a political party, considered an act of citizenship, is different from supporting a racist organization repudiated by civil society. But let's take the politics out of it. Where was the respect for Dan Cooper as a person? For his humanity? We show respect for each other by respecting their power to choose their own paths in life. My friends embrace many political, religious, ethnic persuasions. Should they be discriminated against for tithings, donations, worship or activities different from ours or not having our approval? I don't know how it works in the US but it would violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He has a right to donate to or endorse any candidate he chooses, just like the Dixie Chicks had a "right" to badmouth our President in another country. Cooper's customers and the Dixie Chicks' customers darn well have the right to boycott them and show their displeasure any legal way we see fit.
I will agree that you "don't know how it works in the US".

Where did you get the idea from my post that Smith & Wesson is "a racist organization repudiated by civil society"?? or that I would EVER support this type of organization? There must be some other Smith & Wesson beside the firarms manufacturrer I've never heard of. After that point I'm even further lost as to precisely what point(s) you are trying to make.
Jim

Since you are apparentely clueless here's S&W agreement and Gun Owners of Americas response:



(Tuesday, March 21, 2000) -- Last week's "agreement" between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton Administration will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the most regretful episodes in the modern Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement. The firearms manufacturer's lamentable decision to "settle" with the most anti-gun Administration in history cannot go without a pointed response by all those who seriously cherish and believe in the God-given right of individual self defense.

The so-called settlement between Smith & Wesson and the Departments of Treasury, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local and state governments is more a nationalization of the British-owned firm which now, for the sake of accuracy, should be renamed the "The Clinton & Wesson Corporation." (More on this in just a moment.)

The Clinton Administration has achieved nearly every outrageous demand in its original lawsuit without having to prove its case in a court of law. This sellout agreement creates an "Oversight Commission" that will include four government officials (one from the BATF) and a Smith & Wesson executive.

The Clinton & Wesson commission will have the power of law to enforce gun control upon any gun dealer that sells S&W products and upon any gun owner that buys from such a dealer!!! This is European fascism at its best, and is much more draconian than what has been reported in the media. Consider just some of the highlights:

Restrictions On Individual Gun Owners
* Gun rationing: Any gun dealer that carries S&W products can NOT sell you two handguns on the same day... or during the same week!!! (No more than one handgun during a 14-day period.)
So let's get this straight: a total gun ban in England has neither stopped 3 million illegal guns from getting into criminal hands nor stopped their crime rate from exceeding ours. But somehow gun rationing here is going to keep criminals from getting guns.
* Mandatory gun owner registration: A S&W dealer will not be able to sell any of his guns at a gun show unless ALL of the sales at the show -- including private sales -- are run through a registration background check. Why does the Clinton administration want to know who every gun buyer is?
* Mandatory training requirements: You will not be able to buy a gun from a S&W dealer unless you have put your rights on hold for however long it takes to complete a certified training course. Hopefully, someone you know will never try to buy their first gun to protect themselves from a stalker or abusive spouse. Because now, dealers carrying S&W products cannot sell that person a self-defense gun until that person jumps through the Clinton & Wesson hoops.
Restrictions On Gun Dealers
* Mandatory employee training. This would require all employees of dealers and distributors to attend mandatory ATF approved training. Thus, dealers who have had a business for 20 years will now need to send their employees to the federal government for indoctrination.
* Dealer entrapment. The agreement requires persons under 18 to be accompanied by adults either in gun stores covered by this agreement or in the gun sections of those stores. So the next time Wal-Mart lets those pesky 17-year-olds walk near the gun section of its store, look out! An ATF agent may jump out from behind the camo rack and bust the employees for not carding the juveniles and keeping them out.
* BATF harassment provision. This agreement gives the new Oversight Commission (including its BATF representative) unfettered access into gun dealers' stores -- more so than is currently allowed by federal law. Any time it wants, the BATF can reach its dirty hand into the dealer's records and gain "access to documents necessary to determine compliance."
According to the official summary found on HUD's website, this agreement is "enforceable as a court order and as a contract." You may have heard on the news about some of the "anti-safety" devices that S&W has agreed to include on their weapons -- trigger locks, smart gun technology, etc. These are anti-safety devices that will cost innocent lives if they are imposed upon the public. After all, if they truly were safety devices, then why does the Clinton and Wesson agreement exempt law enforcement and the military from having these items on their guns?

For these reasons and more, Gun Owners of America is urging its near quarter of a million members and all those committed to a NO COMPROMISE position in regard to the Second Amendment to disassociate themselves from the firearms manufacturer and BOYCOTT all Smith & Wesson products.

This is a serious and dramatic step and one which we had never envisioned taking. We are aware of the "extortionary" pressure that Smith & Wesson was under from the maniacal Clinton-Gore Administration and the costly legal struggle that it faced. However, to defeat such a vicious and cunning opponent requires courage and perseverance, not capitulation.

In taking this step, we are adopting our forefathers' example, who also boycotted those merchants who willfully collaborated with British authorities against the interests of their fellow Americans. In fact, Smith & Wesson's decision is not that altogether surprising coming from a foreign country that has been so hostile to the private ownership of firearms.

In sum, Smith & Wesson has done serious and irrevocable damage to the entire 2nd Amendment movement. Such action is no longer worthy of gun owners' support or patronage. We hope our loyal and patriotic membership concurs. Just as important, it is hoped that this action will dissuade other firearms manufacturers and related industries from abandoning the struggle against the assaults by the Clinton Administration on our unalienable rights.

ACTION:
* GOA urges all of those who are deeply troubled with Smith & Wesson's decision to voice their protests and concerns directly

King my friends are diverse also. The dynamics of free enterprise are such that when one offends one's customer base there are going to be financial repercussions. Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks for all practical purposes ended the groups career by speaking politically in a way that offended her customer base. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old girl cousin and offended his customer base and his earnings went way down.

You can vote for who you want in the privacy of a polling booth but for what you do publicly you can be held accountable for in the private markets.

There are endowments and trusts that don't invest in non-green companies. There were universities that pulled all their money out of South Africa during Apartheid.

And as long as we have strayed into Canadian free speech I believe at least one person has been prosecuted in Canada for arguing that the Holocaust didn't take place. Of course it did take place but I find it puzzling that yall can't trust yourselves to figure out for yourselves the truth, thus making it necessary to criminalize his arguing his belief.

Free speech should be protected from the government. And Mr. Cooper wasn't jailed or tarred and feathered or lynched or pilloried by the private market forces, he was just fired. He is free to get another job.

Best,

Mike

Edit - Didn't your Holocaust Denyer get convicted? Of a felony?

King old boy, it's about money. Ya, the BOD can let it go, say that it is his rights. And it is. But they have something else in mind, even more important, and that is the ability to be solvent as a company and individuals. If the money quits coming in everybody is going to be out looking for a job. Not their rights...

If you're making bagel's in a macaroon shop, do so, but don't shout it to the world, unless that your sure that you want the world to know.

Well King, I guess I'm a bigot by Canadian standards. I don't do business with any other company that I know to be anti-gun, either, nor do I patronize businesses and organizations that are anti-hunting. If enough other shooters do the same, it's possible to force a few (like Smith & Wesson) to change their tune...and that change of direction usually necessitates some heads rolling. It's called free enterprise, and Cooper's BOD either gets it, or they don't. If they don't, the stockholders - the people the board is there to protect - AND the employees suffer because of one principal's callous disregard of the rights of the company's patrons, rights that he knew most of the patrons are sensitive about.

And BTW, I don't consider political contributions automatically "an act of citizenship", especially if they're to a candidate that opposes the Constitution.

If you read the article, its evident that Cooper drank the Obama Kool Aid. His staement that the "Republican Party has moved so far tot he right" is laughable. He is politically dillusional.

If a Catholic Priest made a contribution or attended a fund raiser for an Abortion Clinic, what do you think would happen to him?

A board of Directors has a right and an obligation to make sur ethat the company they preside over is being run to ebenfit the shareholders. Coopers donation to an avowed anti gun politician is akin to buying a hammer,nails, lumber and a saw for the guy building your gallows.

If he were a mere employee working the floor that would be a different story. But he was the president of the firm. Big difference.

The KKK example was an extreme example to illustrate the point. The board of a company is charged with running the company and basing its decisions and actions that best protect the comapny, employees, the shareholders, and customers.

The letter released by the company stated their reasons for Cooper being removed, that it was a business decision, not a political decision. They did not want to see a boycott of the company from angry customers and potentially face going out of business.

So the man does not share your political views.

I'm sure we all buy plenty of things from companies who do not share all our own political beliefs. He is supporting a legitimate candidate in a democratic system, not funding a guerrilla faction bent on violent overthrow of the state.

I thought you chaps were keen on freedom of speech, freedom of political expression and freedom of the individual to do what he wants with his own money.

Seems to me Mr Copper was just doing that.

In Canada and many other societies in the world, one apparently is free to choose but one also expects not to suffer any consequences for those actions.
In the United States, one is also free to chose but and here is the big 'but', one is expected to suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of that choice.
The difference may be subtle but powerful.-Dick

SB, King, and the rest of you abidicators of freedom, let me spell it out, since the concept is so foreign to you:

We ARE EXERCISING OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH with our wallets.

Now go to police station and turn in your (choose one or more)
Rifles
Handguns
Swords
Knives
Butterknives
Testicles

I think Mr Cooper was treated very unfairly. He was fired from a company that he started becaused he expressed a political opinion, an opinion that is currently shared by roughly half of the voters in this country.

The BOD could just as easily put out a simple one page news release of their own explaining that they did not share Cooper's beliefs but that they respected his right to express them, instead they fired him.

Dan

I run a private language college. I personally believe that a Conservative government promotes private business better than a Labour one, which favours putting public money into the inefficient State Sector.

Should one of my senior staff/ co-directors choose to donate to the Labour party, vote Labour or express (maybe for other reasons more improtant to him than educational funding) a preference for Labour, should he be fired? I think not.

Essentially you are persecuting someone for acting lawfully on his own convictions. Seems rather 'un-American'.

dis agree with him, argue with him or don't go to his shop - but a witch hunt? Surely your history has taught you something about those by now?

The BOD has stated its reason very clearly:

"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 Fire Department would not be happy to have amongst its members one who donates to the "Association of Arsonists".

JC

Arson is against the law. Being a Democrat is not.

I suspect that the detractors here "Don't get it" Because they don't want to get it and therefore admit the truth that the BOD at Cooper Arms acted responsibly vis a vis their shareholders. This is a typical left wing liberal approach to avoiding the truth and to just ignore it and take their argument off on another tangent.
A principle in a firearms firm supporting a Presidental candidate who is the most anti-gun person to ever run for this office is a traitor to the rest of us gun owners plain and simple. It is no different that what the S&W President did in 2000 and the fallout would be the same.
I'll ask this as a flat out straight question and just wait and see what answers we get.
YES or NO: "Does the BOD of Cooper Arms have the right to discharge an employee from the Company who is not acting in the Company and the shareholders best interests?"
Jim

Jim, I guess the answer depends on the country we're living in. A company would need deep pockets to violate a constitutional right in Canada. Rights and freedoms trump shareholder dividends. Otherwise money becomes the arbiter of morality. Everyone here, with or without testicles, would not accept it.

Mike, "free speech" has limits. The Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was convicted for hate crimes and extradited to Germany which tried and jailed him for the same thing: spreading anti-Semitism, incitement to racial hatred and denying the Holocaust. Canada and the US denied his applications for citizenship.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service reported Zundel as an internationally known leader in the white supremacist movement, including neo-Nazi groups that advocate and use violence, positioned to influence followers here and abroad. Two were arrested in US for planning Obama's assassination last week.

Ask it another way Jim, should your company have the right to fire you if you espouse legitimate political opinions or deeds that differ from their preferences?

Who knows, Mr Coper may on-balance feel that Obama represents the best hope for the whole country and therefore, by extension, his own business.

As a supporter, he may feel that he can take up the issue of gun control wiuh reasoned debate and represent the industry to the new government. All speculation for sure, the bottom line is the board and Mr Copper have political differences and he was fired for that reason.

You either believe in freedom of religion and freedom of political expression or you do not. No good shouting about freedom for you and then getting upset when someone you don't agree with exercises it too!

Jim, I guess the answer depends on the country we're living in. A company would need deep pockets to violate a constitutional right in Canada. Rights and freedoms trump shareholder dividends. Otherwise money becomes the arbiter of morality. Everyone here, with or without testicles, would not accept it.

King:
There were two possible ways to "answer" the question I raised in my last post:

1: Ignore the question
2: Go off on a tangent

You obviously have taken the latter route and are avoiding the question by going off on a tangent. I can't speak to your Canadian "Rights and Freedoms" but I can tell you that here if you are an employee of a company and you commit an act deemed not in the best interest of your employer you will be dealt with in any way the Company sees fit. A traitorous act is a traitorous act period.
A company can't act to protect their own best interests? Now that's a bizarre concept I've not heard before. Again Answer the question I raised Yes or No.

The problem with this BB is that the depth of gun knowledge of many posters runs considerably deeper than their knowledge of current affairs. Their “knowledge” is composed of gleanings from biased media and fuels their paranoid fear about gun rights, their belief that anything said against the US is unpatriotic and that all Arabs are terrorists.
What makes this BB worthwhile is that periodically a well-written, balanced and thought-out statement will surface. Usually posted by someone outside the USA , disparaged by those who know less and whose logic is so flawed it does not merit that name.
K.

King & Dig:

Take it a step further and look at it from the board's view. Their JOB is to protect the investment of the stockholders. The company president publicizes personal actions which anger their customers, and they're inundated with communications to that effect. What are they supposed to do - let the president bankrupt the company and leave the shareholders holding the bag? Their hands are tied, they have to act.

Nobody's rights were violated here. Mr. Cooper is free to vote for the candidates of his choice. However, the president of a firearms manufacturer publicizing support of and political contributions to the most anti-gun presidential candidate in US history is an extreme act, just as incongruous and insensible as a Catholic Bishop publicizing personal support and personal monetary contributions for the construction of a free abortion clinic. Of course both are entirely within their rights to do so, but to expect to be able to do so without grave consequences in simply not sane.

well thank you for straightening us out with you anti American rant.Silly us,we thought Obama's past votes and overwhelming proof that he is by far the most antigun canditate to run in our lifetimemeant where proof enough.
Apparently we where worng when some "kerryman" is able to see that we have no knowledge and are "parinoid" about our gun rights(hmm seem to recall a "clinging to guns and religion" reference).

man are we happy you have come along,and shown us our errors in our ways.
let me ask you oh wise one,as someones "outside the USA" your well thought out and balanced views will surly be able to tell us Americans.
WHEN HAS OBAMA EVER VOTED FOR OR STOODUP FOR GUNOWNERS ?????

The answer is no, Jim. No one can break the law arbitrarily to protect their bottom line in a democratic society.

No laws were broken.

No doubt, we haven't heard the last of this.

At first, I thought:'that clown should get canned, if possible.'

Then I read further and saw that he apparently is getting, or did, get fired.

After reading what King wrote about civil rights, I really think this is going to be a big legal issue.

On one hand, you have Dan Cooper's civil liberties which allow him to vote/support whomever he chooses. On the other hand, he may to have used his standing as Cooper Arms CEO as a political platform, which may put him under corporate rules/policies. I'm sure there'll be lawyers involved in this one.

McCain/Palin for me, please.
Regards
Chuck

King:
"There was NO law Broken" I beliieve that statement is correct.

I'm still waiting for a Yes or No answer to my question rather than another diversionary tactic. Here's the question again in case you forget it.

YES or NO: "Does the BOD of Cooper Arms have the right to discharge an employee from the Company who is not acting in the Company and the shareholders best interests?"

This has NOTHING to do with free speech which in not an absolute right anyway. If you think it is than try yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. An officer in a Company has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders(Owners). He violated this responsibility and is suffering the consequences.
Jim

While I/we appreciate the points of view from our friends in other countries, I doubt we(Americans) have much to learn from how these other countries are run. The only emigrants we have moving from the USA to England or Canada seem to be our draft dodgers and Madonna. You're quite welcome to both categories.
No real offense is intended as I excercise my free speech.
Thank you for all the opinions,

GET OUT AND VOTE!

I wonder how many of you feel you should be justifiably be fired if you donated to the candidate supported by your boss or supervisor or whatever? Would you feel it was legit? I suspect not.

Meanwhile, another gunmaker has bitten the dust and the antigunners never lifted a finger. No doubt they are laughing their collective arses off over this.

Brent

PS. Maybe Cooper sees Obama as inevitable and better to get into his camp and work from the inside than stand on the outside, locked out. Who knows? But I'm sure a lot of you are about to resign where your political views fail to dovetail with that of your employer's.

You have to know where Brown is coming from...a socialist state. Everything makes sense after that.

I seem to remember Bill Ruger on a TV show years back. I believe it was 60 Minutes. He was given free air time because he opposed the NRA on the issue. I don't remember if it was the Brady Bill or what but I do know that at the time I had a handful of Ruger products. I have yet to buy another and have since rid myself of all but one.

So long Mr. Cooper. Regardless of your excuse for selling out I'm glad you were exposed and dealt with accordingly.

Skip

Bill Rugers real problem was that he wanted the flow of cheap surplus military firearms into this Country cut off. He maintained, probably with some justification, the these impacted the sale of new firearms from Companies like his.
What was overlooked and shortsighted on his part IMO was that usually after fooling around with one of these clunkers you either had spent way too much money on it or it still didn't funtion as well as a commercially available hunting rifle.
The bottom line is that while these surplus rifles introduced many new shooters to the sport inexpensively it also provided the incentive to purchase much better commercial weapons in the long run.
Jim

That isn't the point at all, Brent. All walks of life live in a straightjacket to some degree. Perfectly legal behavior that would be acceptable for one person can be highly inappropriate for another, and carry severe consequences. That's just a fact of life.

Obama is entirely free to put his cigars wherever he likes. However, if he chooses a place as inappropriate as Bill Clinton did and word gets out, there's going to be hell to pay again.

It's about a lack of judgement that people in certain leadership roles should have. Mr. Cooper is free to say anything he wants, including political speech. However, what he chose to say publically called his judgement as president of Cooper into serious question, and the stockholders had a right to protect their investment. Free speech is a protected right, but the fact that the speech was political in this case is not germane. Free speech is free speech. Folks are free to say pretty much anything they want, but no one is protected from the social and economic fallout of ill advised speech.

When you run a business you have to be carefull of what you say. Rights aside, MR COOPER acted as a FOOL and Cooper Arms will never be the same because of it.

Domino's pizza franchise holders paid the price when the owner offended half the women in the country with his political donations. Likewise K-Mart when their spokeswoman came out of the closet and another rep shot his mouth off about fried chicken at a golf club dinner. It does not take much to drive off a large percentage of your customer base. We don't buy Levi Strauss products, now do we? This isn't a free speach issue, it's a customer relations issue and the customer is always right.

I cannot have any sympathy for Mr Cooper, nor can I feel that his ejection from his executive post was not completely legal or deserved.

Had he donated as Mr Cooper, of whatever street, some town, USA, he may have gotten away with supporting who he pleased, but he decided that as Mr Cooper, President of Cooper Firearms, to support a party that is effectively working towards destroying his own customer base in the first place.

From a personal and business sense, all I can ask is "What the F*** was he thinking?"

After the aforementioned S&W debacle, and the Zumbo affair, to think that one could be the head of a firearms company and NOT have such donations seen and acknowledged, let alone the statements to reporters, and to not expect it to have a negative affect on the companies business, is simply irresponsible.

I think that the damage is done, and as long as Mr Cooper holds shares in the company, they are going to suffer, as there are too many that will not spend any of their money if they believe that any of it may turn around and be spent on furthering interests that are directly opposed to their own.

As an executive decision goes, this rates beyond stupid. To make a public stand, supporting the same people that would see your own industry die without a qualm, is both stupid, and a failure of his responsibility to his shareholders, and to his employees.

Dan Cooper is free to speak his mind, as well as to spend his money as he sees fit. As are all those that were former and no longer potential customers.

Any Charter rights that may apply in Canada, or Constitutional rights that may apply in the US, are only worth the paper they are written on in the event that the government is bearing down, which is clearly not the case here. This is simple economics. Insult the customer base, and the customers go elsewhere.

If I were a shareholder, or an employee, I'd be pissed. A kindergarten kid would have seen the connection between the action and the reaction.

Cheers
Trev (from Canada)

Canada socialist? Canada hasn't spent a trillion dollars to nationalize its banks, insurance and mortgage companies. Canada hasn't taken a nickel from its taxpayers for market bailouts or picked private enterprise winners and losers. Canada, with the G8's strongest economy, is prudently conservative with a Conservative government that watches banks like hawks, regulates them to have money in their vaults. If that's socialist, I should think many Americans would welcome it!

Quote
"After the aforementioned S&W debacle, and the Zumbo affair, to think that one could be the head of a firearms company and NOT have such donations seen and acknowledged, let alone the statements to reporters, and to not expect it to have a negative affect on the companies business, is simply irresponsible.

I think that the damage is done, and as long as Mr Cooper holds shares in the company, they are going to suffer, as there are too many that will not spend any of their money if they believe that any of it may turn around and be spent on furthering interests that are directly opposed to their own"

Trevi:

I think it should be pointed out that S&W has come light years in redeeming themselves after that fool they had for a CEO was ousted. I quit boycottng them long ago since they repudiated his position. As an aside my carry gun is a S&W 4008 in 40S&W.
Furthermore S&W sends two factory gunsmiths to my club once a year and they will work on any S&W product on the spot for a $20 donation to the NRA. The essentialy rebuilt a Model 28 Highway Patrolman who over 30,000 rounds thru it for me two years ago. In this case their positive actions go a long way.
Cooper can do the same but whether they choose to remains to be seen.
Jim

As far as Cooper goes, since his name is still on the Company, I'd bet he still owns a controlling interest in it. I'd also guess he "fired" himself to try and prevent the inevitable boycott of his company's products. For the guys not from the USA, I don't think you really understand how seriously we take our 2nd Amendment rights, and thats why we still have'em. Don't worry, once the election is over we'll all calm down...Geo

King, do be serious, no banks have been nationalized, nor insurance or mortgage companies. They have been "bailed out" which is not the same.

Dig, don't take an example literally. Mr. Cooper, by supporting Obama -who clearly opposes guns- is going against his company as a whole, its shareholders and employees. No one is denying him his rights; even his right to act as a perfect idiot. That is not to say the company is better off without him around. Good riddance.

JC

If obslamma wins or not I won't be calming down anytime soon. I am a contractor and a few "friends & associates" who are gun owners are proving to be hypocrytes and are about to find out first hand about redistribution of wealth.

I take it these are subcontractors?

I,and I know there are many others, could say a great deal more here about the insanity of any gun owner supporting the socialist Obama other policies aside. You who post here from other Countries(Canada,Ireland,Great Britian etc. )have already lost your firearms freedoms for the most part and you'll have to pardon us if we don't want to roll over and lose ours.
What ever happens on Tuesday we will never give up and concede like a herd of mindless sheep. We are made of stronger stuff than that.
Jim

I wonder if anyone bothered to try to quantify the actual damage done to S&W by that particular example. I have my doubts that they would have survived at all, had that not been as large as they were, and as entrenched in as many "corporate" markets as they were.

Sadly not the case with the Cooper Firearms Company. They make a luxury priced product that fills a niche in the marketplace that relies upon the continued goodwill of the customer base. They are going to need an awful lot of luck to weather this, more, even if the Democrats take the seat.

Smith &Wesson survived and learned. Dunno if Cooper Arms will. Anyone else that wishes to keep a firearms business as a going concern, in this day and age, could learn a lot from both examples.

Cheers
Trev

No one is denying Cooper, or anyone, has the right to donate money to whatever candidate they wish or to exercise freedom of speech. However, like anything else, actions can have consequences. Given the charged political nature of firearms ownership and the past history of customer backlash (like the public reaction to Smith & Wesson cozying up to the Clinton Administration as someone has already mentioned) against firearms companies that support pro-gun control candidates or gun control laws, it's no surprise that the BOD asked Cooper to resign. It was in the interest of protecting the company. When it comes to politically charged issues, those involved in the struggle put their money where their mouth is.

If Sarah Brady gave money to Ron Paul, it would not surprise anyone here to see her removed from her position, and the reasons would be obvious to us all.

Dan Cooper just learned how true the old admonishment not to discuss religion or politics at work is. There is no "right" to make stupid business decisions that is protected from the wrath of the owners or supervisors in that business. Anyone who would put an Obama sticker on their car and park in the lot of a small business where they work or brag about the wonderful Obama fund raiser they attended the evening before is tempting the fates on their livelihood and is not very intelligent.......maybe not intelligent enough to remain employed there. I can understand the decision to terminate those who make a decision to work against the interests of the company.

Bob, funny you should give the example of the bumper sticker. I heard on the radio a couple days ago of a fellow with 50 employees. He indicated that if Obama is elected, he will be needing to get rid on at least 10 of his employees and raise the price on his product.

Trying to figure out who might go, he walked thru the parking lot and observed Obama bumper stickers. They made the decision easy for him as those were the ones being laid off, if he is elected.

Lenard

I guess it depends on the definition of nationalize, Jaycee. American citizens through their government are taking ownership positions with shares in those private companies. Nationalize, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is to "convert (land, railways, coal mines etc) into national property or undertakings." I am serious, and so is US government (which took its lead from Labour's Gordon Brown) in trying to protect taxpayers investments in those firms.

I thought S&W reorganized or was sold after that debacle???

Lenard, that could reinforce an old adage or two. Biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind.

Skip

Mr. Cooper's constituional rights were not violated. Neither the Federal government nor any state government punished or prevented Mr. Cooper from expressing his political will.



Mr. Zundel had the full weight of the Canadain government brought to bear on him for expressing and promoting his hateful, ridiculous, beliefs . In other words he was criminally prosecuted for hate speech.

Mr. Cooper lost his job. He is free to pursue another job. He isn’t going to jail.

I think it is obvious that when it comes to protection of free speech the USA takes a backset to no one.



Game, set, and match

Best,

Mike

Quote form Handloader magazine in 2001:

"To make sense of the whole S&W agreement, it is necessary to keep a few things in perspective. First, S&W took relatively confidential information from firearms manufacturers' meetings and carried it directly to secret meetings with Andrew Cuomo and Administration lawyers. In signing the agreement, S&W fully expected preferential treatment for firearms contracts (which have failed to materialize), and finally, S&W attempted to spin the media in an effort to sell a bunch of double-speak about the agreement to the general public"

Smith & Wesson was under British ownership and management(Ed Schultz) at the time it attempted to stab both the other firearms manufacturers and American gun owners in the back.
This changed in 2001 when the company was sold back to an American firm for pennies on the dollar.
Jim

King, nationalize as in the state owning the banks and doing whatever they want with them (lending money at special interest rates to their political cronies for example). This is not the case, the stake the government is taking in banks does not allow it to take part in the actual running of them; they cannot act as owners.

As far as "socialists" go I have to agree with you that the pressures exerted upon Fannie and Freddie by the Clinton administration back in 1999 lo have lax lending policies concerning minorities/ninjas (aka sub-prime) are really of the socialistic/demagogic kind and are the main cause for the present day financial situation.
NYT article

JC

"Free Speech" in the USA means freedom from state prosecution for expressing personal views, even unpopular ones. It does not, however, prevent customers from exercising their own freedom of choice in deciding not to purchase products or services from those advocating unpopular views or from oranizations they are publically associated with. Expressing one's views publically can, as a result, have real economic cost to an individual or to an associated organization.

Cooper's publically expressed views clearly would have had a signficant adverse effect on Cooper rifle sales due to unhappy potential customers exercising their freedom of choice to take their business elsewhere.

The questions seems to be, is an organization legally permitted to protect itself from economic damage by terminating the employment of publically identified individuals irritating substantial groups of potential customers. Given that radio or television personalities are regularly terminated for making "politically incorrect" remarks that "offend" groups of potential listeners or viewers, i.e. customers, the answer clearly seems to be yes in the USA. Is the situation different in Canada?

Van,
I've never seen an executive's contract, but I'm willing to bet most contain some kind of coverage for public statements/acts that damage the company, thus allowing termination and probably penalties of negotiated perks/bonus' etc..

In Canada, the issue is an inherent human right of expression. Money doesn't enter into it. It would be a violation of human rights codes and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to fire a person for exercising what society considers a civic responsibility, perhaps an obligation i.e. political donations are treated very generously under our tax laws.

Re your example regarding "politically incorrect" statements by well-known persons, a human rights commission just cleared Maclean's magazine of hate-speech charges laid against it and our distinguished writer Mark Steyn by the Canadian Islamic Congress. The decision ran 37 pages but it said, in effect, media has a right to publish a range of view including those that may offend some members of the public.

Here's a cogent part: "Read in its context, the (Maclean's) article is essentially an expression of opinion on political issues which, in the light of recent historical events involving extremist Muslims and the problem facing the vast majority of the Muslim community that does not support extremism, are legitimate subjects for public discussion." Steyn's article was titled "The Future Belongs to Islam."

US media is timid compared to Canadian and British. Maclean's took the CIC on because the issue wasn't its article but "the fundamental right of all Canadians to express their views openly and honestly. It was about the responsibility of media organizations to report without fear or favour, and to foster debate in the marketplace of ideas."

Dan Cooper's rights, in my opinion, were subordinated to his company's right to make a dollar. Showing respect for the person gives content to moral law. Another dimension, particularly poignant today with your elections, also seems to have been overlooked: among the greatest achievements of your Founding Fathers was making a wholly secular state with political parties that over time permitted dissent to be a legitimate voice, not a treasonable act.

I like to think Jefferson's "empire of liberty" lives on here.

Freedom is not free.

Mr. Cooper made a payment for our freedom of speech with his job. He did not pay for it with his freedon, his life, his right hand, etc... And Dan Cooper is free to continue giving to Obama's campaign, speaking out for him, campaigning for Obama, speaking at Democratic functions, setting up a website for Obama (UnemployedGunsmithsForObama.com ?) living in the United States, etc...

The Canadian government was trying to prescribe what Mr. Zunfel could post on his website, make Mr. Zunfel cease making his statements and imprison him for making them in the past. That I could find no one accused Mr. Zunfel of violent acts. Let me say again that I think Mr Zunfel is a horrible person with horrible beliefs.

Im my opinion free customers censoring with their patronage is much more democratic than a government commision deciding what is and what is not acceptable to post on the interent and trying to enforce it with loss of freedom.

I admire when someone speaks up for their point of view knowing that they run the risk of financial repercussions. I admire Mr. Cooper for what he did and I bet he knew he was running a risk when he chose to make a donation that is by law public record. I think his politics are wrong-headed, he seems to be a fine man.

King I want to thank you for keeping your part of this argument civil and polite and appreciate your posts here.

I have a grown son that my wife and I spend many hours each week laughingly discussing his foibles and screw-ups but let one our siblings mention any of his flaws to us and the fight is on.

Best,

Mike

King,
I believe that Mark Steyn posts here ;-)
If not, he could, with his unquestioning support for the Iraqi war, his misinformation on 9/11 and his “If you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull them”
Over here he once had a column in the Irish Times and regularly was excoriated for his racist remarks. Either the Irish sense of humour is very different or he is just not funny.
K,

Yeah, Steyn's sometimes hard to take, like Hitchens or our Barbara Amiel. Their opinions provide a way of measuring my prejudices, though.

Where Steyn provided a service to Canada in the Maclean's cover story, however, is that media, libertarians and other interest groups are trying to change our federal human rights act which makes it a federal offense to publish anything that is "likely to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt."

That's considered a vague and subjective limit on free speech---beyond the "reasonable limits" on speech envisioned by Parliament and the Charter--- which, in the above case, was used by the Canadian Islamic Congress to attempt to punish those who make statements or opinions with which they disagree.

We'll get it right the Canadian way: muddling through!

Quote:
"In Canada, the issue is an inherent human right of expression"

So what you are telling us King is I could come up to Canada walk into a crowded public facility and start yelling "FIRE" with out any concern whatsoever?
Jim

Yes, it does. The fundamental truth of a free society is that the exercise of freedom is always burdened with responsibility in the exercise thereof - the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others - otherwise society is not free. When the exercise of a person's right impinges on the rights of others, that right terminates. Real freedom requires respect for the rights of others in society.



Other way around, King. In my country, everyone has rights. Stockholders are people too, people with the same rights as everyone else. The stockholders of Cooper, through the Board of Directors they selected, hired Dan Cooper in good faith to be president of Cooper. At the top of the job description for the president of any corp is the responsibility to protect the investment of the stockholders. Dan Cooper recklessly subordinated the rights of those people to his own, resulting in extreme hazard to their investments, which he had accepted personal responsibility to protect in exchange for their money. Dan Cooper failed utterly to respect the rights of others that he was specifically responsible for.

If, as you say, only certain classes of people have rights in Canada, which I strongly doubt, well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. "Worker's Paradise", eh? I've never been under the illusion that freedom is as well protected elsewhere as it is here. I'm sure glad I'm an American.

So you believe genocide is acceptable to the USA members of this BBS? I can find no threadss promoting it so I don't know if it was condemned or supported by the members. I would guess that it received condmenation. I think you intentionally insult us.

I have seen racists posts condemned by the members here before the moderator deleted the thread.

I haven't read Mr. Steyn so don't know what he says about 9/11.

If I support winning the Iraq war does that me a supporter of genoicide? If don't like Mr. Obama's voting history on gun issues and have doubts about his new found zeal for gun rights am I supporting racism.

You paint with a broad brush I think.

Best,

Mike

Mike,
You should read what Steyn writes before inferring anything or writing the foregoing. Do so and you will see that your post is rubbish,
Best,
K.

I repeat; You paint with a broad brush I think

Best,

Mike

Some further thoughts.



I see. So you're saying Canadians have no property rights? I always suspected that yours wasn't really a free country, but I had no idea....



Hmmm. So, unilaterally abrogating a solemn fiduciary responsibility is considered the moral high ground and a "civic responsibility" in Canada? Yikes!!!



Well, if your representations are correct, it's clear that it doesn't in Canada. Unfortunate, but understandable. We Americans don't expect foreigners who haven't experienced it to understand what freedom is.

I did not anticipate leaving the notion that only certain classes of people have rights in Canada. In this country, citizens may exercise their rights---yelling "fire," of course, is beyond reasonable limits of expression everywhere, Jim---without fear that they can be punished for doing so.

It would be against the law to fire a pro-choice employee of a condom manufactur if that person campaigned publicly against abortion or picketed with placards at the company gate. I said in my first post that I didn't know how it works in the United States. This is how it works in Canada.

The dollar has nothing to do with it. Should the pro-choice evangelical's activities affect the condom manufacturer's bottom-line, that's a price of freedom of dissent. Nothing's stopping the manufacturer from his right to have his say with five-colour ads or airtime. He can't deprive employees of their livlihood.

The will of the American and Canadian people is expressed through their legislatures. Your great republic is expressing its will today.The United States of America was born in dissent. It may choose a son of slavery with middle name Hussein for its highest office. It's the American way. Let freedom reign.






.

Just taking you at your word, King. If stockholders have no rights, well, then only certain classes of people have rights.



I think you're flying a kite here, King. An employee running a machine making condoms and a corporate president with a clear fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders are clean different things.



That's absurd. Of course they can. With rank and file employees, they can lay-off when it becomes clear that business is going to decline. With corporate officers, they can make key management changes to increase profitability.

yeah, and i'm sure glad others aren't.




king, i'm surprised you can even dress yourself. obama's not a "son of slavery". at least not in this country. his father's from kenya and his mother is white.

your notions of liberty and freedom are typical of the socialist left. they ignore all aspects of personal responsibility and accountability. yes, people have the rights to do some things. that does not absolve them of the responsibility of their actions. the ditzie chicks are the classic example of this. they think they can behave any way they like but shouldn't have to suffer any repercussions.

your attitude is no different. an employee may have rights as an individual but that does not mean his rights can trample on those of his employer.

and for the record, constitutional rights to not apply in every venue. this board for example is the "united states of dave weber". he can allow whatever or whomever he chooses on this board and can also remove them. no one has a "constitutional right" to post to the doublegunbbs. cooper had a "right" to support any candidate he pleased. cooper firearms had a "right" to remove him as an employee.

"he can't deprive employees of their livelihood." ??!!?? that's a stand-alone statement you made; no qualifiers. i hate to tell you this but no one has a RIGHT to a livelihood. if that statement were true, no one could ever be fired for anything.

roger

Stockbrokers or stockholders in Canada have the same rights as others, no more and no less; they can't break human rights laws. Management may make as many changes it likes providing it does not violate human rights codes. Collective bargaining contracts between owners and employees everywhere have force majeure provisions covering layoffs. Liberty means equality. Free societies everywhere forcibly deny dialectical materialism The dollar does not rule.

I didn't mean to hurt, Timothy. I admire many countries. The only country I love after my own is the United States. Americans always get it right over time.

"The will of the American and Canadian people is expressed through their legislatures. Your great republic is expressing its will today.The United States of America was born in dissent. It may choose a son of slavery with middle name Hussein for its highest office. It's the American way. Let freedom reign."

Obama is not a son of slavery. He hasn't a drop of African blood in his bony body. He is half Egyption, half white. He's a descendant of slave owners, not slaves. I also suspect he would be completely white with an effective enema. He will be the first black Clinton and probably the worst president in my lifetime. Worse than Jimmuh Cahtuh and Slick Willie combined. BUT, America will survive, with no help or advice from Canada, Ireland or England. Some help from God would be welcome, though.

His mother is white that pretty much makes him white. Remember mitochondirial DNA comes from the ovum. Not sure if he is son of ole' slave traders or slave owners, but many Arabs in places like Kenya or Madagascar certainly were.

King:
I'm not exactly sure how things are structured in Canada but here in the States a Corporation is treated as a person. That means they can be sued,fined, found in violation of the law and are also expected to be able to protect their rights. An executive level employee out of step or touch with the corporations best interest is a liability and any Corporation here would be well within their rights to discharge such an individual.
We also have laws here regarding illegal terminations which were used by Companies to get rid of high paying middle age employees who were usually White males. These laws have never been used effectively and White males are probably the only group that can freely be discriminated against here and no one will protest it.
Jim

You're stretching, King. Cooper was fired for creating a potentially fatal public relations crisis for his employer and stockholders. I believe that is more than sufficient cause for termination anywhere, including Canada, and I don't think you can support your contention that it isn't. His "human rights" certainly weren't violated by any standard.



I know of none. In recent history, only the US has come close, and we're embattled. The rest of the western "democracies" have long since succumbed. Your country was one of the first.

Barrack Hussein Obama is 1/16 black, 7/16 Arab and 15/16 white since Arabs are white. He is also 100% anti-white, anti-American, and Marxist.

King
Liberty does not mean equality, that is socialisim.

Liberty means having the chance to do what you can and to perservere to ACHIVE to be the best.

In your definition a janitor should be paid the same amount as a CEO.

What you speak of has many names, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, all with there little twists and lilts. In the end it is all run by a "ruling class" looking down at the little people and saying "we are all equal so give us your money so that we can distribute it to all". The problem is that the ruling class figures it needs 95% of the money to "govern correctly and take care of all of you".

I don't need taking care of I can take care of myself if I can keep the money I EARN!!!!!!!!!

We will survive this catastrophe! Thanks to all who voted.

one of our local radio guys said it took 4 yrs of carter to give us reagan so maybe the bright spot is 4 yrs of obama will give us a real conservative in 2012.

if there's anything left of the country by then. my fear is he'll import so many illegal aliens that he'll get the country well beyond the point at which a large enough percentage realize they can vote themselves the money the rest of us makes that the socialists will be unbeatable by then.

roger

Jim:
We can roll over and play dead like they unfortunately have done in other Countries or stand up and fight. I for one choose to do the latter. We'll regroup and go forward from here. Thank God there's still enough real people in this Country with the fortitude to do so.
IMO we have become fat,bloated and far too complacent in this Country. We thought we were safe and isolated from extreme socialists and these demagogs only reared up with their "changes" elsewhere. So get ready for a four year long enema which should prove to be a catharsis for all.
Jim

Mark,

Good post. In case you missed it, King refers to it as "dialectical materialism", which is the basic philosophy of communism. He claims that ALL "free" societies repudiate it:



Life on Mars, right here on earth. It's amazing that so many have been brainwashed to the point that they don't know what non-collectivist thought is.

You're right, it's a chameleon that goes by many names. Because of that, I prefer the term "collectivism". It's the greatest threat modern man has ever faced. Our country was the last bastion against it, and it fell tonight. God have mercy on us all.

Gentlemen, you have a new President.

This forum wisely avoids party politics most of the time so I hope this will see us return to discussing our common ground- old guns.

I have friends of all political persuasions (always have had) and respect their differing points of view, especially those who are thinkers and have considered the issues individually and educated themselves about each issue rather than instinctively rail against everything outside 'their camp'.

From my viewpoint as a non-Republican, non-Democrat outsider, Bush has been an embarrassment on the world stage and America's estimation in the world has plummeted under his inept administration.

I hope that Obama presides over a regeneration of your great country and suspect that your worst fears are just that - fear. They will not manifest themselves as many of you think. I think 'Mom and Apple Pie' are safe enough and just hope that American policy is now conducted with a little more intellectual rigour by a man who is clearly intelligent and informed.

McCain gave a dignified speech and many Republican big-hitters on the radio here concede that Obama has the potential to be a great President. I hope so. Be optimistic and look forward with belief in your nation.

Dig,
Thanks for the words of encouragement. Given Obama's views and history, a little fear may be a good thing, even for his fellow party members. I hope that provides the balance.

Best wishes to our new president and may he surprise us all with the job he does. God bless America.

And back to the topic of this thread, God bless Dan Cooper for running a fine firearms company, being a great small business contributor to Montana, and for standing up for his civic beliefs.

Once again, he picked a winner.

Smart money says he'll be back in charge in under 90 days, which happens to coincide with the end of Montana's many fabulous hunting seasons. I've always wondered how I might "resign" for the hunting season....

Maybe I'll ask for help with that from these board members some day!

Grouser

P.S. please please please run Sarah Palin against Obama in 2012.

Presumptuous, ignorant, and insulting, Dig, but I have enough respect for you to assume that you intended it well. I wouldn't expect a Brit to even begin to understand, and you clearly don't.

If our new President elect does a good job, nobody on Earth will beat him for a 2nd term in 2012. If he doesn't, he'll be out. Actually I'm pulling for him, but I got my doubts...Geo

Sorry if I offended you Nitro -

I meant to say; "I only like people who agree with me on absolutely everything, never listen to other people's points of view and refuse to learn through informed debate with others of different political instinct or experience because they think they are right instinctively and don't want to consider any alternative.

Oh, and I hope you all go to Hell in a handcart now that you have a Marxist loony in charge. We all look to China for inspiration now anyway."

Just joshing, as I said, I meant no offence I have too many American friends to wish you ill.

Don't worry about your guns. Obama's job is to get a country estranged from its great and glorious character back on track, restoring its prestige, getting its industrious, resourceful and idealistic people pulling together to do all the things the republic is capable of doing. No one could fault McCain last night for saying the United States is "the greatest country in the world."

What happened yesterday wasn't right or left, Marxist, socialist, liberal or conservative. Conservatives participated actively in the victory. As many of the so-called Religious Right, a transitory movement, voted Democrat as Republican. Palin's parochialism, embarassing to many conservatives, will be gone by 2012. America's job now is to repair things.

There's a new distribution of world economic and political power. American unilateralism is out, multilateralism is in. The US will embrace the Geneva Convention, the UN affirmation against torture and the right of habeas corpus, revalidation of the International Criminal Court, and tackle nuclear non-proliferation and climate-change.

The American people yesterday demonstrated the moral authority to lead the free world. I was blurry-eyed at pictures of the Grant Park wrap-up last night. I was with MLK in the bad times, at Lincoln Memorial and in Oslo when he received the Prize. I was there when Grisson, Chaffe and White died on the Cape gantry, and with the Kennedy brothers, at Ole Miss with Meredith. Bless them and all of you.

I figured you didn't, Dig. Sorry I snapped.

For what it's worth, a lot of us in the US don't fit into "camps" anymore. Since I'm essentially a Goldwater conservative - pro choice, with little patience for the judgmental social engineering crap that the evangelicals shoved down the throats of the Republican Party during the Reagan years - I have no political "home" in our system.

The fear is well justified. This guy is just another Hugo Chavez. Watching my country being dismantled by a Marxist thug is going to be heartbreaking.

King - I frankly resent be lectured about US successes or problems by a Canadian. And most of your comments about conservatives and who they voted for are completely wrong.

Worry about your own problems including rationing your health care. Hope it doesn't affect you when you need it.

Thanks for your consideration, buddypol. Going in for second cataract operation next week, following the first a month ago on my left eye: 20/25. Two-week wait. Cost out of pocket only for the two lens, total $CAN 580. Universal healthcare isn't perfect but we're getting there. And no more excuses for missing ducks in poor light!

Politics aside King:
I hope all goes well with your eye surgery next week. I count myself as extremely fortunate in that I only need glasses for close in work like reading. No alibis alowed on my part for missing; However if I could just see well enough to get the shells in the gun!
Jim

King - also hope your surgery goes well. Hope you got your choice of doctor and didn't trade rapid turn around for that option. I also think you are lucky it wasn't some other procedure based on what I see on provincial websites about waiting for available space. But, in the end I guess it helps the profit of our border hospitals because they do a booming business in Canadians seekly timely care. Does your government pay for that also?

A shooter with a dog working a hedgerow for pheasant is wasting his time when on his own. At best he is reducing the chances of the hunt by 50%. If he collaborates with a buddy, particularly one who knows the terrain, to walk on the other side of the fence, listens to him when he says what is happening or what coverts or obstacles are there, discusses the options, he increases his chance of success. If he doesn’t listen to his buddy or, worse, p##### him off, he is wasting his time and is doomed to failure,
US foreign policy in a nutshell.

We need each other. Most of us had great friendship with and respect for the US. Solo runs diminished that enormously. Let’s hope Obama will mend the fences.

King, good luck on the eye-op. Some years back my cousin in BC had to wait much longer for his, due to the high number of US citizens going north to get it done more cheaply!
Best,
K.

Kerryman:
Please do not ascribe a motive to this other than a wish to understand.

Do you suggest that our government consult with European government before deciding what is in the best interest of the United States?
Or do you refer to the United Nations for such consultation?
Best regards,
John

And here I thought I was enjoying some recreation.

(just kidding K-man)
Regards
Chuck

Yes, provincial governments have set wait times and if treatment not available will pay for travel and care in US where the appropriate care is available. We choose our own GPs and specialists. There is a doctor shortage.

Gee I wonder why?

John,
Thank you for the measured tone of your question. I certainly did not suggest either of those two points. What I meant is if you have a friend who knows what he/she is talking about, you listen, you take the advice and you act accordingly. America is a huge sovereign state and has its own interests to protect and is fully entitled to do so without reference to anyone if it so wishes; however, with that power comes a responsibility. A drunken friend should be told not to drive. Should that drunk go out and kill several people, resulting in opprobrium being heaped upon him, that shame/disgrace is well-deserved. What we saw during the last eight years is a trend that has sent your great country out to the fringes of democratic society because it rushed against all advice into areas that were not a threat and where it had neither the knowledge nor expertise. It did not listen to well-meaning advice all of which was based on fact. For example, Iraq. Several of the foreign posters here have alluded to this trend and, like me, because they admire the US, do not like it.

To put where I’m coming from on the Presidential debate in context:
I am very pro America. That country has been very good to me and my family. I have had kinsmen go there from the early 1700’s – one was a sloop commander in the 1750s and was captured by a French privateer off Cape Henlopen; others fought & died (on your side) in your Revolution and on both sides in the civil war. Still more fought in WWI and II. I spent five very happy and profitable years there and like to think that, in addition to the taxes I paid, I made some contribution in return by giving freely of mentor time/lectures to the student/business community.

Where I have a problem is when false claims are made that are patently untrue and yet accepted unquestioningly by part of the populace and by too many on this BB. Politicians should be questioned and held to account. Being interested in the election and having – currently – some extra free time, I posted more than is usual.

To call Obama a Marxist is arrant nonsense. To call him a towel head, or many of the other names we have seen on this BB (e.g. Mc [censored]) is despicably racist. Sadly, no-one saw fit to comment on these insults.. To say that he supports terrorism because he knows Ayers and Khalidi is downright ignorant. Actually, McCain probably is closer to Khalidi – when he was chair of the IRI they gave about $500k to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, a body that Khalidi helped found.

There were claims that Obama was going to cut the size of the military. Quite the opposite: he proposed an increase of 65,000 troops for the Army and another 27,000 for the Marines. On gun control, the NRA advert “Imagine” on a gun ban is totally fictitious or at best a gross distortion of the truth. That ad fails to mention that the issue was a local handgun ban. The gun owner knew his house keys had been taken, did not bother to change the lock, kept his two children in his bed and when he heard something downstairs went down with his illegally-held gun and shot the intruder and then called the cops. What Obama voted for was not any general repeal of the right of self-defense, but to uphold enforcement of the local gun ban, a "petty offense."

I do not want to go on with more or, indeed, list the Obama lies/distortions on McCain’s policies– there are several of them too.

Hopefully President-elect Obama will achieve many of his promises.
Hopefully he will not encounter any of the uneducated goons on the wrong end of a gunsight.
Hopefully the 100k jobs and $4 billion in taxes paid here by US multinationals will not be taken away by him.
Hopefully my American friends when they come to visit will no longer feel they have to apologise for where they are from.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my views.
Warm regards,
K.

Kerryman:

I appreciate the post.

Best,
John

You falsely paint all on this board (I imagine you except non-Americans) with this untruth. More than one member condemned this racist slur, and more would have if Dave had not quickly deleted the thread when it was called it to his attention.

Jay

Do us a favor.....keep 'em.

King Brown let us down; many of our draft dodgers have returned.

I see on another thread that RWTF repeats his use of the racial slur that closed a previous thread. And again some repudiated him for this.

keeryman is anti American through and through and his posts prove that.Just another "keyboard coward" that would not have the guts to say in person what he dribbles out here.This arrogance,and calling anyone who disagrees with "his" view of what and how we americans should own gunwise and say is unacceptable.Its sad that the poor parenting he had did teach him better.

Remember the traitors,confront them at every venue.
OWD,Kerryman,possunhunter,pmag

As do I.

Brent

I just can't believe you would write something like that. Keep that up and no one will be visiting. What a stupid thing to say! Anyone who would apologize is not a true American.

it'll be a cold day in hell when i appologize for being American. that's the kind of low life thing the ditzie chicks and other America-hating celebrities do.

of course....our president-elects wife has said she was never before proud of her country until now so there you go.

roger

Herein lies the problem.

There is sufficient documentation that proves you are wrong.:

On the matter of his relationship with Ayers, take the trouble to read this duly documented article:
Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

For more enlightenment: Saul Alinsky

Something that really shows his ideology is BO's close ties with ACORN. Here is just a sample of what they do: ACORN's Nutty Regime for Cities Pay attention to the NY Schools episode.

Unfortunately the gun issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

He will surely go at it slowly and cautiously and use the very accurate "lobster in the pot of cold water syndrome" mentioned by Brian in another post. But the socialist/marxist agenda is there. They now go about it with stealth as very well put here: Political Correctness - The Revenge of Marxism

God Bless America.

JC

Clearly false, as you have clearly proved here with your arrogant and disrespectful posts. With friends like you, Americans don't need enemies.

JayCee,
It is pointless and rude to prolong political debate on a Shooting board and I see little point in doing so. The sources you quote are very slanted (if not downright biased ) and are from the far Right. An undergraduate at any of the colleges here would get an F were they to hand in the erroneous diatribes that you have quoted as valid sources.

For an example of an attempt at juvenile propaganda take the paragraph “The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.” This clearly tries solidify a tenuous Ayers link to Obama and imply that Obama supports the violent past of the Weathermen. Any editor worth that name would question the structure of that paragraph. Obama said “the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense.”

Also, when Palin made a similar claim, Obama, on Oct. 8, when questioned by ABC News' Charlie Gibson said:This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.

You can research the topic in factual unbiased media here-
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

As for quoting the website "Gates of Vienna" as a valid source, well, it and the so-called Baron Bodissey are such a joke they merit their own parodies – a good one is here http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/12920.html

At this stage this has descended to crap if those are the only sources that can be thrown at me.This topic is about to start impinging on my work, which means I cannot shoot Saturday if I keep replying to nonsense and slanted journalism. That is NOT going to happen.

You have a new President elect who, unlike the last guy, has the admiration (for now) of the free world. That’s good enough for me. The vitriol of the many who posted personal comments on me, my background, parents, education and my views shows them for what they are. (Actually their content, spelling and punctuation does that for them!)Water. Ducks. Back. Those who debated with me and did not descend to the gutter continue to have my respect and hand of friendship.

I am not going to post on this topic again.
K.

Quote:
"I am not going to post on this topic again."

K.

Welcome relief from the fantasy world of the extreme left wing liberal. I expect some of the outright B. S. they've posted here will come back to haunt them in 6 mos. to a year. assuming we still have access to a free and unregulated Internet.

The walls with guns for sale at my local club are essentially bare which is somber testimony that most if not all the residents of my area don't believe the B.S. either.
Jim

Kerryman Quote:
"I am not going to post on this topic again."

What one says when he clearly has proven WRONG and is to stupid or gutless to admit it.
kerryman- an arrogant, antiAmerican, liberal,coward, who should have thought of that before he attempted to force his puke where he does not belong the first time!

Kerryman,

Talk about juvenile. Why didn't you quote this from Stanley Kurtz's article:

"The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative."

But Obama says he hardly knew Ayers, "just someone from the neighborhood".
And you say they had a tenuous link when it is documented they sat on the same board. Great argument.

I now realize you haven't read what I so childishly posted. At least not open to the facts therein made clear. Pity, I had thought better of you.

Giving you facts is pointless indeed.

JC

BTW, "Sadly, No! is a liberal/progressive humor site based in Germany..." This from their own webpage.

Of course, "liberal/progressive". What else.

No arguments anywhere. Facts? None.

JC

Kerryman;
"You have a new President elect who, unlike the last guy, has the admiration (for now) of the free world. "

Lets see the S&P is down close to 10% in two days with the prospect of "bankrupting coal companies",higher cap gains,and the most liberal of all B Hussain Obama comming into power.The markets around the worl are fairing no better.

Seems to me the failed Obama presidency is here now !


IMPEACH OBAMA before its to late

When I'm abroad, I'm damn proud to be an American, but I am totally embarrased of President Bush. Sometimes I think he is purposefully trying to wreck everything in his sites. Now that the elections is done, I'm trying to suck it up and I HOPE that our new president elect can and does a good job. But I have some serious concerns.

Tim

Small Bore said, "Bush has been an embarrassment on the world stage and America's estimation in the world has plummeted under his inept administration."
Whose embarassed? Regular Americans aren't. And by the way, we wish our "estimation in the world" would plummet quite a lot more! Maybe all these illegal aliens would quit risking their lives, and breaking our laws to gain entry into this embarrassed, plummeted, country.......Sheesh!!! Get Real!!!
And "Obama the Amateur" sure ain't gonna regenerate much......
Grant.