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

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,