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

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