[44 AMP]

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.