doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com COOPER ARMS

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