View Full Version : Cooper Firearms Of Montana

Al Norris
October 30, 2008, 01:04 AM
Let's get the rules about this thread right out into the open. This is about a very stupid (and possibly fatal) mistake made by the Owner and CEO of a gun manufacturer in Montana. It is not about who he gave campaign contributions to, so much as he did it to possibly (probably?) curry favor. So let's try and keep this as apolitical as it can be. Get carried away and your post will disappear.

On Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008, an article appeared in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm) that interviewed Dan Cooper, CEO, of Cooper Firearms of Montana.

The online response was and has been immediate.

By noon, Oct. 28, 2008, the following appeared on the home page of Cooper Firearms:
Regarding the USA Today Article. Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc. did not contribute and does not support in any fashion the campaign of Senator Obama.

Nine months ago Dan Cooper (personally) made an online donation to the campaign in an effort to help defeat Hillary Clinton and in protest of American plant closures and the shipping of jobs overseas. Three months ago he made yet another donation to the McCain campaign and the RNC totaling over twice that given to Obama campaign.

There is no doubt that the article in USA Today has caused a considerable response. To this end we are encouraged and stand with our fellow NRA members and supporters of the Second Amendment and against those who oppose it.

Following that statement, several individuals dug deeper and it appears that the only political contributions by Dan Cooper were to the candidate originally named in the USA Today article. No one has been able to find any contributions made, as stated above.

Today, Oct. 29, 2008, the following appeared
In response to the recent article highlighting Dan Cooper’s personal political donations, the board of directors, shareholders and employees of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc would like to issue the following statement.

The employees, shareholders and board of directors of Cooper Firearms of Montana do not share the personal political views of Dan Cooper.

Although we all believe everyone has a right to vote and donate as they see fit, it has become apparent that the fallout may affect more than just Mr. Cooper. It may also affect the employees and the shareholders of Cooper Firearms.

The board of directors has asked Mr. Cooper to resign as President of Cooper Firearms of Montana, Inc.

Daily operations will continue with the competent staff currently in place in Stevensville, MT producing the finest, most accurate rifles money can buy.

Dan Cooper has spent all of his working life producing the highest quality rifles built here in the USA. He started with nothing but the American Dream and built that into firearms company anyone would be proud of. We firmly believe Dan stands by the 2nd amendment.

We wish him all of the best in his future pursuits.

As I read the two "disclaimers" above, I just shake my head at the amount of damage control being applied. Consider that the board "asked" Dan to resign, not that he did. Consider that if Dan & Family own the majority of shares, they can't oust him. Consider also, that Mr. Cooper also funded the same politician for his senate bid in 2004.

Attorney Dave Hardy has a few words (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/10/cooper_arms_exe.php) to say about this fiasco. The story was picked up by the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2008/10/barack-obama-re.html) this evening.

Mr Cooper? Meet Mr. Zumbo.

October 30, 2008, 09:47 AM
If he does resign, I hope they can find someone as responsive to run the company. The first time I e-mailed them it was Dan Cooper who responded a few minutes later.

And no, I wasn't complaining about my new rifle, just asking a question about stock grading. FWIW, the stock was nicer than what I'd paid for, but the box label was marked a half-grade lower than what I'd expected. He said it's always a judgement call on wood quality and offered to print me a new label. ;) I declined his offer btw.

Oh well, we'll see how this plays out.


Glenn E. Meyer
October 30, 2008, 10:20 AM
At the risk of being flamed, I will state as a civil rights stance:

One cannot expect blind loyality only to the RKBA when faced with a progun candidate of suspect quality, supporter of detrimental policies to the country and who is a threat to other liberties.

A rational mind says the argument that the 2nd is the defender of all other liberties or the welfare of the country implies that one would have to have armed rebellions over a host of issues other than owning guns.

So if you elect a threat to free speech, religion or our economic welfare because they are progun, then do you immediately start an armed rebellion against them with your progun allies?

Thus, the gentleman in question or anyone has the right to determine the net sum of candidates' qualities and vote or support whom they please.

Demanding a litmus test on ANY issue is not my way of thinking and I think little of those who only vote on one issue in today's complex world and various threats to liberty and freedom.

May not be popular with some of you but I wouldn't vote for a progun candidate who was going to introduce Taliban like moral censorship of the media even for fully auto guns in Cabela's.

Al Norris
October 30, 2008, 10:57 AM
Glenn, I won't flame ya. In fact I'll agree with you.

The one real fact that stands out that I see, was a gross error in judgment.

In light of the political "disarray" that we find ourselves in with this election cycle, Mr. Cooper was ill-advised to have given that interview. That was an extremely bad business decision on his part. Without the interview, there would have been no article. Without the article, the "Zumbo Effect" would not be in play.

October 30, 2008, 11:29 AM
If, indeed, his intention was to ensure Hillary did not win, it is slightly harder to criticize him for supporting a VERY anti-gun candidate(IMO). However, playing politics with two candidates you don't want to see elected is always dangerous. His "plan" may have backfired. "Gamming the system" has certain associated problems (ethically and practically, IMO).

I agree with Glenn in his opinion that single issue voting is foolish. Personally, I use the 2nd as a screening test, then examine the rest of a candidate's stances to see if they are really worth voting for.

This one is rather politically charged, but I'm glad it is not succombing to what the previous section did.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 30, 2008, 11:38 AM
I was trying to avoid whether Cooper was ill advised or analyze his motives. I think I was trying to stay with the abstract principle.

As far as people's motives - as a psychologist - the only motives are more food, more water, more sex and reduce pain - everything else is a secondary version of such. :D :D

October 30, 2008, 12:23 PM
Did they stop teaching Maslow's heirarchy of needs? Different folks are motivated by different things, depending on their level of development.


Glenn E. Meyer
October 30, 2008, 01:05 PM
It is arguable that Maslow's hiearchy of needs is just a Western idealization of motivation.

Second, the so-called higher needs are just evolutionary designed processes that promote success on the basic levels.

Thus morality and honor motivations, for example, have evolved biologically and/or culturally to promote reproductive success of one's close genetic cohort.

For example, creativity - there is evidence that solving a problem generates a direct reward in pleasure centers. Thus, we explore and create - however, that trait has contributed to primate success in our evolutionary niche and thus reproduction. Sponges have no evolutionary need to be creative to reproduce and thus have no 'need' for it.

The RKBA - what is the motivation for that? It's a basic survival level principle.

October 30, 2008, 01:22 PM
He was either foolishly trying to curry favor or was just foolish.

Evan Thomas
October 30, 2008, 06:22 PM
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
One cannot expect blind loyality only to the RKBA when faced with a progun candidate of suspect quality, supporter of detrimental policies to the country and who is a threat to other liberties.

A rational mind says the argument that the 2nd is the defender of all other liberties or the welfare of the country implies that one would have to have armed rebellions over a host of issues other than owning guns.

So if you elect a threat to free speech, religion or our economic welfare because they are progun, then do you immediately start an armed rebellion against them with your progun allies?

Thus, the gentleman in question or anyone has the right to determine the net sum of candidates' qualities and vote or support whom they please.

Well said, Glenn.

There's no reason to think that Mr. Cooper made anything but a principled decision about which candidate he wanted to support. If he then lied, on his company's website, about having given more money to the other guy (Oy! these circumlocutions are SO much fun... :rolleyes:), that was both unprincipled and stupid.

In terms of his business interests, his choice of a recipient for his money is obviously causing some short-term pain to him and his associates. What Maslow's motivational hierarchy doesn't point to directly, but some other systems of moral development do suggest, is that one sign of a relatively high level of moral development is to do the right thing even when it isn't in one's own self-interest...

Possibly Mr. Cooper had a highly moral moment and then thought better of it? Makes him seem, well, human.

44 AMP
October 30, 2008, 10:33 PM
Supporting the claim he gave to both sides, we wouldn't be in such a snit. Lots of businesses contribute to both candidates parties, hedging their bets as it were, so that whomever wins they will have "helped" them get in office, for whatever that turns out to be worth.

The saddest thing is that Cooper Rifles, the company, is going to suffer from this, not matter what else happens. Those on one side of the issue are not going to buy their rifles because of the donations by Mr Cooper, and as stated in the responses to the LA Times article, those on the other side are not going to buy Cooper rifles from the company because they asked Mr Cooper to resign.

The workers and shareholders are the ones who will suffer most from the fallout of their CEO's "personal" decision of donating money to a candidate, and the Board of Director's decision to ask him to resign for the good of the company. No matter what his reasoning, Mr Cooper has placed his business (and everyone in it) in a lose/lose situation.

To me, there is a fundamental question, and it exists due to the nature of the firearms business and the nature of the customers. Making and selling firearms is not the same as making and selling bricks, or bread, or cars, or anything else. Most fundamental business principles apply to firearms, but there are a few "extra" factors that make the gun business unique.

One big one is the complex mosaic of laws that govern firearms ownership manufacture and sale throughout our country. Another is the fact that there are factions in politics that are actively working to put gun makers out of business, and remove guns from the hands of private citizens. And yet another is the overall attitude of the customer base.

Because we, the customer base, are being actively worked against, restricted, and often demonized in our pursuit of perfectly legal, valid natural rights, we tend to resent this. I know I do. We tend to regard those working against us as enemies of liberty. People not only working to deny us our legal 2nd Amendment right, but the natural right to self defense, and the simple natural right of "pursuit of hapiness" through ownership of personal property (our guns).

It is a natural and entirely human response to regard those who give aid and comfort to those we consider our enemies, with dislike and disdain. For a gunmaker to do such a thing, helping those who would deny us the ability to purchase the gunmaker's product seems not just to be a betrayal, but the height of stupidity. If a publisher contributed money to those who wanted to burn books, we would consider that ill advised, at best. But what can we do to express our displeasure or our outrage?

Sending letters, phone calls and e-mail to the company, and refusing to buy any of their products, and telling them why is really all we can do. We do all this in the hope that the company will change whatever policy it is that enrages us to these actions. If the company gets the message soon enough, and acts soon enough, it may even survive.

One can only speculate on Mr Cooper's motives, but the one that comes easiest to many of our minds is that he might have been trying to ensure that his baby was the last one going to be tossed off the sled to the wolves. And that attitude smacks of elitism, trying to curry personal advantage at the expense of the rest of us.

No matter what the actual reason(s), the impression that has been created will bring hardship on Mr Cooper, his business, employees and shareholders, even though not all of them deserve it. Relative giants of the firearms industry, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have, at different times suffered from the political decisions of those in charge of their companies, or acting as spokesmen, and the customer base's reaction to those decisions. They survived, but suffered in the process. I don't see Cooper Rifles being able to do this as easily, if at all.

October 30, 2008, 10:47 PM
Cooper slipped money to Obama, thereby supporting Obama. Obama never met a gun control idea that he didn't like. Ban handguns. Sue gun makers. Keep mere civilians from owning some of the most effective self-defense rifles that exist. Cooper was stupid to contribute money to, and to support, such an anti-gun shyster.

Somebody needed to say it.

Al Norris
October 31, 2008, 12:08 AM
A follow-up article from USA Today. My comments at the end.

Rifle maker bounces boss who supports Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm)
Updated 2h 54m ago
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Montana gunsmith Dan Cooper has been ousted as chief executive of the rifle company that bears his name after pressure from gun owners who are angry that he is supporting Democrat Barack Obama.

Cooper, founder and part owner of Cooper Firearms, told USA TODAY in a story published Tuesday that he has voted for Republicans for most of his life, but he is backing Obama "probably because of the war. And also because the Republican Party has moved so far right in recent years." Cooper said he was attracted to the Democrat's message about "the retooling of America, which involves the building of middle-class jobs and helping American small business be competitive with those overseas."

Cooper contributed $3,300 to Obama's presidential campaign, according to election records complied by the non-partisan CQ MoneyLine.

The USA TODAY article sparked outrage from some gun owners and bloggers, including an open letter on a blog called Firearms and Freedom, urging people to boycott the company's products. Many gun enthusiasts believe Obama will try to restrict their right to bear arms, although he has said he respects the Second Amendment.

In a portion of the interview that was not included in Tuesday's story, Cooper said, "I don't believe that what's being said about Obama and his policies about guns are accurate. I have had a conversation with the senator … he is a stanch supporter of the right to hunt and the right to bear arms."

The company posted a statement Wednesday night on its website that said:

"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."

Cooper Firearms employs 38 people, Cooper said Monday. Cooper started the company with two partners in 1990. It manufactures wood-stock bolt-action hunting rifles that start at around $1,600. In October 1992, Cooper presented a rifle to then-President George H.W. Bush at a Montana campaign event.

In a statement Thursday to USA TODAY, Cooper said, "There is nothing on this earth I will not do for my employees … we have fought through 20 years of building what I believe to be the finest rifles built in America …When the internet anger turned on these innocent people, I felt it was important to distance myself from the company so as not to cause any further harm."

He said he had resigned the company. He did not address whether he will maintain an ownership stake — except to say, "stronger measures may be forthcoming."

"It's a really McCarthyism at its worst," said Bob Ricker, executive director of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has endorsed Obama. "That's really why our organization was formed, was to deal with this craziness. If you're a gun owner, but you have a contrary view to some of these wackos, they will go out and try to destroy you."

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said in a phone interview that he was disturbed by the backlash against Cooper.

"It's the silly season," Schweitzer said. "There are people who have partisan interests here, and they are using the gun issue. Three weeks from now these bloggers are going to wake up, look under their bed and see that their gun is still there."

The governor, who once described himself as a "gun-toting. .. kind of Democrat," said he is a "big supporter of Cooper Arms."

"I'll go anywhere in the country to help them sell their product," he said.

Representatives for the campaigns of Obama and Republican John McCain did not respond to requests for comment.

Some gun bloggers, such as one who blogs on snowflakesinhell.com, had posted the company's e-mail address and telephone number, encouraging gun owners to boycott Cooper Firearms the company and contact its top executives.

"This needs to get around," wrote the blogger who identifies himself only as "Sebastian, a thirty something, self professed 'gun nut' living somewhere in Pennsylvania." He added: "Gun owners need to know which companies sell their interests down the river. Here's contact info for Cooper Firearms. I would talk to them, and be sure they know Obama's record, why you're not voting for him, and why you'll never buy one of their products."

The company said in a statement to USA TODAY that it had received more than a thousand emails over the controversy.

When the USA TODAY story was first published, Cooper Firearms posted a statement saying that Dan Cooper had only given money to Obama in order to "to help defeat Hillary Clinton" in the Democratic primaries and to protest the shifting of American jobs overseas. The statement said Cooper had then given money to the McCain and the Republican National Committee. Election records show no Cooper donations to McCain or the RNC, and the statement was later taken down.

Last year, a similar outpouring of outrage derailed the career of Wyoming outdoorsman Jim Zumbo after he denounced the use of assault rifles for hunting. Zumbo was a staff writer for Outdoor Life magazine and the host of a television show on the Outdoor Channel.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on outdoorlife.com. "I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

"Within a few days, I was radioactive in the industry," Zumbo writes on his website, jimzumbo.com. The magazine "asked me for my resignation, and I was suddenly without employment. I was done writing, and my TV show was on hiatus. Many of the companies that supported me in the past issued severance statements with me on their websites, as did shooting and firearms organizations," including the National Rifle Association.

Zumbo was able to save his career by publicly embracing assault rifles. He wrote a mea culpa entitled, "I was wrong, big time." And he "went on to work with the Second Amendment Foundation … and attended a three-day assault rifle course, which I immensely enjoyed," he writes on his website.

"It's very simple supporting the second amendment is like being pregnant. Either you do or you don't,," said Jim Shepherd, who publishes the Outdoor Wire and other newsletters. "Is it right? It just is. It's the way it works. It's absolutism. Dan Cooper laughed at his customers. If that company does not take Cooper out of its name, they're dead."

Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the Cooper Firearms controversy is "an indication of how voters and gun owners feel about Barack Obama. He has a lifetime record of opposing their rights."

Obama has been trying to assure voters otherwise.

Earlier this month in Lebanon, Ohio, he said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

While I'm troubled that this company may not weather this storm, and the 38 employees may be looking for another job, remember this:

None of this would be happening if Mr. Cooper had not agreed to be interviewed by the USA Today reporter. He would not have had to backtrack by saying he donated to McCain and the RNC. He would not have had to step down, from a company he built from scratch. His donation would have remained comparatively anonymous.

If Mr. Cooper had not heard of Jim Zumbo, you can bet he has now. This did not go away for Mr. Zumbo, and contrary to what the article above implies, it will not go away for Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper used some very bad judgment and it just may destroy his company.

Stupid should hurt.

44 AMP
October 31, 2008, 07:37 PM
That you cannot draw a line between "good" guns and "bad" ones (and i don't mean quality vs junk), because our enemies do not make that distinction. All those "sportsmen" and "gun owners" for Obama (or any other anti gun candidate) are not willing to see the simple truth, that to the gun banners, ALL guns are bad. Their shotguns, deer rifles, and handguns are not safe from these people. The absolute best thing that will happen (if the anti's gain enough power) is that the traditional sporting firearms will be taken away last.

The most obvious examples of the creeping incrementalism of the anti gun forces are England, Canada, and Australia. Without a law comparable to our 2nd Amendment, the citizens were unable to effectively fight the creeping tide of more and more restrictions on firearms ownership. Every few years, new restrictions were enacted. After sensationaized shooting incidents, sweeping restrictions were enacted. The end result has been the virtual removal of firearms of all types from legal ownership and posession.

We do not want that to happen here. So to us, all classes of guns are the same, just as they are to our opponents. We will not give them the semi autos that they call assault weapons, to keep our deer rifles, because we know that even if we did, it would only be a matter of time (and likely a small amount of time) before they were back calling for us to turn in our deer rifles. We will not give them so called "Saturday Night Specials" in order to keep some other handguns that they claim (at the moment) not to want. We will not give them our pump and semi auto shotguns in order to keep double barrels. We will not give them anything they want, because no matter what they say, what they do is keep wanting more and more, and more, until they have it all. When they say they only want to restrict or ban certain guns, for whatever reason sounds best in the news (too dangerous, only made to kill, for the children, etc) They are LYING.

We stand for the rights of all gun owners, no matter what type of gun they prefer to own. And we do this because we remember. We remember what happened to those who did not stand for others, when the time came. We remember what Martin Niemoeller meant when he wrote "First they came for ..."

Give aid and comfort to the forces of "change" if you wish. It is your right to do so, if that is your choice. But don't expect us to look kindly on that act when it imperils our rights and freedoms.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 1, 2008, 09:46 AM
Earlier this month in Lebanon, Ohio, he said, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Argh that makes me so mad I go crosseyed... I can't believe at the level of sloppy reporting in that article. Just THIS YEAR, he was in support of the city of Washington D.C.'s laws banning handguns.

They can take the time to discount the opinion of gun owners by saying "although he has said he respects the Second Amendment"; but they can't take out the time to point out that his later statement is contradicted by one less than 8 months old?

If we could just get a fair hearing in the press, that would be such an incredibly huge step forward. Instead we have to settle for getting our side heard at all - biased digs and slanted reporting included.

November 1, 2008, 03:07 PM
I suppose that Anti's point in his first post is to examine the reason Cooper did this, and it certainly was a huge risk, especially with the (deserved) backlash from gun owners and those who value the individual right to keep and bear arms. Cooper not only foolishly blundered when he supported Obama, he advertised and put a spotlight on his support for Obama when he did the interview. I suppose that Cooper is hoping to curry favor with Obama and other liberal democrats when they start trying to define which rifles to ban as assault rifles viz new 'sensible common-sense gun safety legislation'. :barf: Hopefully, the cost of publically supporting an anti-gun candidate will greatly outweigh any benefit Cooper's public support may earn from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Careful Mr. Cooper, I hear that Obama's friends are very concerned about citizens being able to own a special new type of assault weapon: the infamous "sniper rifle." And those Cooper rifles, what with their special stocks, and ability to mount sniper scopes, and to use sniper ammunition, and with their sniper barrels, well......:eek:

November 1, 2008, 04:23 PM
A lawful contribution to the Obama campaign.

Now, his judgement is in question no doubt.

Does anyone have McCain's voting record on the Klinton laws, assault weapon bans etc?

My general read is both have voted pretty much the same when in congress. I view the entire election as a win win.

Moving from Congress to the presidency, either is now out of Congress, and, I and the rest of the US is pretty disgusted with congress, 8 or 9 % approval rating. Getting another lawyer, Obama out of congress is always a good thing.

The presidency, when you really get down to it, is blamed for actions taken by congress. Who voted to fund the war?
Who voted, illegally, to give the Executive branch control, and, failed to actually declare war?

Who is giving 50 billion dollars to Africa to fight aids?

We survived Klinton, we can survive Obama.

Currently, we are experiencing run away greed and corruption on a scale not equaled since the turn of the century, and the robber barons. We may end up with a socialist government....

November 1, 2008, 05:16 PM
With all the focus on Cooper's right to say what he did, there's not been a whole lot of focus on his responsibility. He used his company as a platform for his personal beliefs, and thereby put it in opposition to its own customer base. That's a violation of the duty he owed the company by virtue of being a CEO.

Replace "guns" with any other product and 1) he wouldn't have said what he did and 2), if he had, the backlash and the company's reaction would have been a nonstory.

He either saw the company as something he could do anything he liked with, or he just didn't care.

November 2, 2008, 12:44 PM
I don't see a conflict. This man makes rifles(correct me if I'm wrong).
Hilary Klinton and her hubbie did actually do more harm then anyone has in a long time to the gun industry with their thug tactics, bullying gun companies with the presidential seal. Given the two choices, Obama has at least not actually been proven to do as much damage as the Klintons have.

I think a search of McCains' voting record on gun bans might not be as favorable as we would like. Many war vets do not think anyone but the military should have firearms...my step father included.

44 AMP
November 2, 2008, 02:02 PM
I fouond this, posted in the NFA forum, by Jim Keenan, and I think it has a bearing here. It deals with the NFA, as originally proposed.

Actually, the Attorney General, one Homer S. Cummings, and the FDR administration proposed a sliding transfer tax that was intended to be prohibitory. IIRC, the transfer tax was $5000 on a machinegun, $2000 on a handgun, $1000 on a rifle and $500 on a shotgun. In addition, there would be a tax of $50 on each round of handgun ammo, $20 on each round of rifle ammo, $5 on each shotshell, and $.50 on each round of .22 ammo. Multiply by around $40 for today's dollar values.

All guns had to be registered and no inheritance would be allowed. But NOTE, as Sen. Obama emphasizes, no one would TAKE AWAY any guns. Until you die, then into the furnace went your guns.

When Congress got done in 1934, the bill was watered down to what is essentially the NFA as it exists today as part of GCA '68.

Think about this, every time you hear some politician say how they don't want to take away our guns. I believe that neither side will work for our best interest when it comes to gun ownership. The difference, as I see it, is that one side will gladly sign any anti-gun bill that hits the President's desk, and the other side will actively work to see that such a bill does cross that same desk.

Mr Cooper, by donating money to the side I believe will actively work against gun ownership, has done a disservice to both himself, his employees, and all of us. Remember that even if they keep their promise not to "take them away", that doesn't mean that they won't make it more difficult and expensive to own, or allow us to buy any more (or buy ammo), or even sell what we have, or pass them on to our children. They can do all that, and still have "kept their promise".

And, considering how many other promises that they have made, and later broken, I prefer not to give them the opportunity.

November 2, 2008, 02:52 PM
Being practical, once again, what is McCain's voting record on gun bills?

No one know?

Obama has only been in congress for around 150 days. He's a liar, and a chameleon, and the best fund raiser of all time.
He'd tell you anything you want to hear, as long as it would get you to open your pocket book.

Of all people who have a major reason for being anti-gun, he's probably at the top of the list. Fear of being shot, high in most of our thieving politicians, must be VERY high in his case. Since he's used his race to achieve many of his accomplishments, he's put that at issue for the public. Not to mention his name, which, while I can find really no evidence of Muslim ties, certainly IS a Muslim name, not the most popular group in the U.S. after 9-11.

The only real difference is the Klinton's have PROVEN themselves anti-gun, and, I'm pretty sure McCain has voted right along with them.

Do we really have any choices, and, being pragmatic, supporting someone that might represent change, against people that have proven they are anti-gun, no matter how illogical, doesn't seem that far out of bounds.

November 2, 2008, 03:08 PM
I think a search of McCains' voting record on gun bans might not be as favorable as we would like. Many war vets do not think anyone but the military should have firearms...my step father included.

I get it...McCain is a war veteran, so he's like your step-dad, who doesn't like guns. Come on. Please. Seriously.

Have you actually looked at McCain's voting record on guns?

Here's another gem:

The only real difference is the Klinton's have PROVEN themselves anti-gun, and, I'm pretty sure McCain has voted right along with them.

Seriously? You've been a member longer than a couple of posts, so you must have seen prior L&P postings on the vast difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton regarding gun control.

McCain voted against the assault weapons ban. Mr. Clinton advocated it and signed it into law. Mrs. Clinton supports it. Obama thinks it is a terrible scandel that President Bush didn't work to have the assault weapons ban renewed. You know, the assault weapons ban, that keeps mere civilians from owning the most effective weapons there are to protect themselves and their families?

McCain voted for the Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act. Clinton and Obama voted against the Act. By the way, the Act has resulted in the dismissal of several lawsuits against the firearms manufacturers and gun dealers. Those lawsuits were designed to bankrupt gun makers and dealers. Remember?

Obama wants to ban handguns. McCain doesn't.

Obama wants to ban all semi-auto firearms. Including semi-automatic shotguns and deer rifles. McCain doesn't.

It is simply astounding to me that there are still those who are trying to convince themselves that there are no differences between Senators McCain & Obama when it comes to gun control. :confused: Because there are huge differences. Obama never met a gun control law that he didn't like.

Al Norris
November 2, 2008, 03:16 PM
Let me reiterate. One more time.

This is not so much about which candidate is more anti-gun than the other. Granted that there is the perception that one is worse.

It is the fact that a business owner allowed himself to be interviewed about his choice and his campaign donations. That, coupled with the perception above, is why folks have Zumboed the man and his company.

The question of which politician is worse, detracts from the real issue. Any businessman/owner who endorses any candidate, leaves himself open to such action by the public. Should the endorsement be detrimental to the company itself, then any action taken by the board is justified.

Now add to the above that this is about a firearms manufacturer, and the owner has publicly endorsed a candidate, who is perceived to be bad for 2A rights, and the result is exactly what we have. Considering that the 2A community once before flexed its muscles in the Zumbo affair, what happened here follows logically, when (discovered) power is used.

It is as clear as night and day. Mr. Cooper got exactly what he should have foreseen he would get.

For those of you that keep hammering away at Obama v. McCain, tells me you really don't have a clue as to what has just happened.

November 2, 2008, 07:23 PM
No, I don't know what McCains' voting record is on guns.
I'm ASKING what is his record?

The only reason I voted for him was he brought Sarah Palin on board, and I KNOW she is pro gun.

McCain has been part of the congress that has been spending money like a drunken sailor, and, giving the drunken sailor, Bush, money to hang himself and our party right out of the white house.

50 BILLION dollars to Africa for Aids? Heck, you could spend that in San Francisco and the Bay Area down to the last dime, and have nothing left over.
I'm sorry, but, I'm so sick of wasting tax money, and anyone involved, that I have no loyalty to any of our current elected representatives. I look at it as picking the better of evils, and, Bush certainly has spent enough to support that position.

I fully support anyone's First amendment right to be stupid. They have that right. I believe that the First Amendment requires we support people's rights to say what makes our skin crawl. That said, I'm NEVER buying a firearm from that guy, and, likewise, I'm not to hot on Ruger and S&@ when they caved in, pressured by the Klinton's.

I totally support this idiots right to be stupid in public, and, his company has every right to flush him.

Politics and business often don't mix. Stupid and business
are a fatal combination for any business...

Tennessee Gentleman
November 3, 2008, 12:39 AM
Maybe I am way off here but I see this more in the business judgement sense. Mr. Cooper is in the gun business. He has shown support for a candidate that most in the gun community find to be antigun. As Al said, what does he think will happen? This reminds me of celebrities who say "I want privacy" but the business they are in is anything but private. Does Mr. Cooper think that he can support an perceived antigun candidate and then have the gun community say: "That's OK Dan, we'll still buy your guns even though your have aligned yourself with an antigun politician". Please. Al, is right he got what he should have known he would get.

November 3, 2008, 09:13 PM
Mr. Cooper made a bad business decision. That's what it comes down to. Maybe making his contributions public somehow suited some deep seated need, or maybe he's just an idiot. Either way, he lost his business and is probably going to be the cause of a lot of his employees losing their jobs since most consumers are now going to be turned off to the company.

November 6, 2008, 03:48 PM
So now that we have his choice as president, will there be any chance of the company surviving this fiasco? I did at one point have mixed feelings about helping to spread the word of this and the impact it may have on the company. Brent

Evan Thomas
November 6, 2008, 04:40 PM
Bill Ruger was widely vilified for refusing to market hi-capacity magazines to civilians, was he not?

Just a couple of examples from threads on TFL:
That answer to that is to stick together now, not to continue to reward the traitors like Bill Ruger. Protecting his butt is not a good enough excuse for betraying America, and his actions are no less than that.

Doesn't even out traitorist activity. If Ruger had fought against the AWB instead of appeasing them so that his Mini-14 didn't get included with the AR-15, perhaps there might not have been a ban. He is the one that created the concept of "high capacity magazines, " leading to their inclusion in the AWB. Don't forget, Ruger used to sell a pistol gripped/folding stock version of the Mini-14 to civilians. He had no problem with evil features on his guns until he wanted to suck up to congress.

The company seems to have survived in spite of all this righteous indignation.

People like Cooper's products: they'll probably survive too...


44 AMP
November 6, 2008, 08:46 PM
Ruger did survive Bill Ruger's "treason" against gun owners, and the S&W name still exists today (although under different management), but Cooper Firearms is not such a big company. The make high dollar specialty rifles, essentially a niche market. I don't think they have the margin or the customer base to survive a serious hit like the one Cooper has brought down on them.

Time will tell.

January 5, 2009, 03:27 PM
Anyone heard how Cooper has made way since the elections?

January 5, 2009, 04:46 PM
I suspect that the companies pre election press releases were a smoke screen. I saw a Cooper rifle I liked advertised online a couple days ago. I went to the company website for any information I could glean about the current company status of Dan Cooper.

There is no mention of any of these events in the company history. The 2008 PDF still lists Dan Cooper as President. It looks to me like the damage control worked. They waited for it to blow over and it did. It would not surprise me if Dan is still running Cooper of Montana.

Given what I found I would still not purchase another Cooper. Seems this one didn't develop the momentum the Zumbo incident did.