Mean-spirited? Naaah! Try sociopathic...

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms is part of his record.

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” This would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

That same year, Obama bravely voted “present” on a law that would require teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. (i guess he didn't want his future constituents and ACORN activists in prison) Obama also proposed the idea of banning businesses that sell firearms from operating within five miles of a park or school — restrictions that would treat gun shops worse than “adult” businesses trafficking in pornography.

From 1998-2001, Obama sat on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, a left-wing group which today funds grants to anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center (which advocates total handgun prohibition, reinstatement of the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban, and the ban of other firearms), the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (which favors the registration of all handguns, seeks to overturn Ohio’s “concealed carry” law, ban standard capacity magazines, and ban economical handguns along with many semi-automatic firearms based upon their appearance), and Handgun Free America (which advocates a complete ban on civilian handgun ownership).

All of these organizations seek to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is the idea of “change” that they share with Barack Obama.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” - Barack Obama believes that legally-armed Americans with Concealed Carry permits are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies lie.

Barack Obama only pays lip service to to the second amendment to pander to second amendment believers.

Bummer for Dan Cooper who failed to do his homework.

You can't expect to retain customers if you spit in their face and insult their core beliefs.

Thanks, Bill, for an important story about political intolerance.

Bob

I wrote a letter to Mr. Cooper letting him know that I was no longer interested in buying one of his fine rifles. He has every right to support who, what and whomever he wants. He also has the right to write letters to the paper, government get on TV, Radio and print media and explain to the entire nation what he believes. I wore the uniform of this county for 22 years to give him and every other person the same right. It is what makes us the United States of America. This same right extends to me not to buy or give my business to those people, companies, with whom I do not agree with their political stance or for whatever reason. Does this make me a bad citizen, No. It makes a citizen exercising my GOD given rights enumerated by the U.S. Constitution and codified in the Bill of Rights. Obama's record is crystal clear just look at his record in the Ill. State Senate with regard to "gun control" issues. He never voted once in the favor of gun rights.

Brilliant, Bill; a very important story.

My letter to SW:
"I am writing to inform anyone who cares at Sportsman's Warehouse (SW) that I will no longer be shopping there. It is downright sickening and even unpatriotic that SW would choose to cave in to pressure from extremism by canceling orders from Cooper Firearms of Montana due to the fact that the now former CEO of the company was so "traitorous" as to vocalize his support for Obama. I have thoroughly enjoyed shopping at SW in the past but I had no idea the company would throw a good man and a good company under the bus to accommodate the malicious intentions of a partisan lynch mob. No thanks. You can let me know if and when you decide to stock Cooper Firearms again. I may reconsider at that point."

Woof!
I believe ASAH is pro hunting, but they don't seem to agree with the fundamental goal of the 2nd amendment, an armed populace capable of defending themselves, others and their communities.

They support banning new manufacture and sale of common modern firearms such as the ar-15 using softer but basically similar rhetoric as hard left anti-2nd amendment politicos. Without cuase, or due process, citizens who have done nothing wrong would have their rights restricted. Hardly what the founding fathers had in mind.

In my view, they seem like an gun control advocacy attempt to drive a wedge between "just hunters" and supporters of the bill of rights. It consistently makes political donations to anti-2nd amendment politicians and organizations.

A front group is a front group.


NOW,
When you also complain about the vitriolic political intollerance being shown to people like Joe The Plummer or Sara Palin (being lynched in effigy for example) as "Something extremely scary" perhaps I'll consider you as something other than a partisan propagandist who only focuses on the portions of truth that are expedient to your objectives. Our country must rise above this pennat waving partisanship.

We stand together to ensure that "our own" don't stand against us.

Ray Schoenke and the AHSA are one and the same, just a facade pretending to represent the interests of gun owners, while working for the Brady campaign.

I'm sorry, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting or sport. I keep and bear arms, not sporting equipment.

Got a new bumper sticker for the wackjobs against Cooper. Here it is. Be glad to sell you one. Be the first on your block to show your stupidity.

My wife, maybe? My dog, no way. My country, sure. My gun, NEVER!


Single issue voters need things simple for a reason. They're simple. It's that simple.

I already called Coopers and hope to order a gun real soon!

So now freedom of speech means we have to agree with you as well? He is free to say what he wants, and we are free to think he is an asshat.

No Cooper rifle for me. And now that you have taken the time to write an article about it, you have inspired me to write all Coopers dealers, again.

As a law-abiding Illinois gun owner (yes, pray for me), I have experienced first hand Obama's "respect" for the Second Amendment.

I have seen him vote for SB1195 - a bill that contained language what would ban every shotgun with a bore larger than 28 gauge. 1195 would have banned all black powder firearms over .50 caliber. 1195 would have banned nearly all semiautomatic rifles including Garands, M1As, and AR15s. 1195 would have also authorized the Illinois State Police to use deadly force to confiscate banned firearms. In short, Obama supported a law that would create another Waco in every neighborhood in the state.

I have also seen Obama come out in support of firearm rationing and other such proposals that directly attack the law-abiding gun owner while ignoring the predatory criminals who prowl our streets.

I have also seen first-hand Obama's pal, Father Michael Pfleger call for the murder of gun shop owners and the murder of pro-gun elected officials.

Obama also served as a board member of the Joyce Foundation - a radical communitarian social engineering organization. The Joyce Foundation has issued more that $40Million in grants to gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, the Legal Community Against Gun Violence and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Each of those organizations is committed to abolilshing private firearm ownership.

No, Obama is no friend of the law-abiding gun owner.

Neither is Dan Cooper. Providing financial support to a candidate whose goal is to enact domestic disarmament is unforgivable. Indeed, Cooper has a right to support who he wants. Likewise, gun owners have a right not to support Judas. Cooper Firearms needs to fold and become a monument to the folly of trying to cherry-pick our Bill of Rights. Mr. Cooper would do well to redirect his business interests to producing latte machines or "Baby on Board" signs.

The AHSA is certainly no friend to the law-abiding gun owner either. The AHSA is nothing more than a collection of lefty elitists who feel that hunting is for the monied few who can afford private hunts on private preserves.

Given all the facts about Obama's stance on guns, I find it amazing that any gun owner would be stupid enough to vote for him.

our ranks need to be purged of traitors. Obama is the kiss of death to gun owners.

AHSA is just a liberal front group. they have no credibility.

Larry Kralj ~
Your said: "Single issue voters need things simple for a reason. They're simple. It's that simple."

Does your statement extend to Environmental Ranger voters?

I find radical environmentist voters the biggest wackjobs out there!
http://www.free-press.biz/3-2006/neo-paganism.html

"Without cause, or due process, citizens who have done nothing wrong would have their rights restricted. Hardly what the founding fathers had in mind."

Hmmm... I ask you: What did Dan Cooper do "wrong"? This man voiced his support for a political candidate. Hardly sounds like an act of treason. In fact, it sounds like Cooper did exactly what our great Constitution gives us the right to do... exercise our right of free speech. While it is true that anyone who disagrees with Mr. Cooper can choose NOT to purchase his products it is deplorable that a systematic effort would be waged to essentially put this man out of business and destroy his career. I really doubt this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Daryl, read your article. Are you asking me if I'm a pagan? Easy answer. Yes. Am I a single issue voter? No.

The title of your article says "Gun Lobby Attack Dogs Strike Again". I disagree these are free thinking men exercising there First Amendment Right. It seems the Liberal Media thinks that they are the only ones that have the right of free speech. You seem to forget that there about 150 million gun owners in the U.S. that have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. They used that right and the Liberal Left doesn't like it. Sir I say to you get use to it we as a nation are tired of Liberal Media trying to sway us one way or the other. We are Free thinkers and you don't like it. If MR. Cooper was so concerned about his business maybe he shouldn't have bit the hand that feeds him. This country would not be here today if wasn't for the fact that its citizens bared arms against a tyrannical king in England. In closing if your so concerned with Mr. Coopers welfare maybe YOU can donated some money to him.

7.62... "purged of traitors"!?

What good is the first amendment when the cost of exercising your right under this amendment is the malicious, engineered annihilation of your very livelihood? This "engineered annihilation" is the only traitorous behavior I am seeing here. You may not agree with Cooper and, that being the case, you should vote with your wallet; BUT to engage in a crusade against a man's livelihood and character is not conducive to healthy political discourse. You should be ashamed.

Mr Cooper "bit the hand that feeds him"?! He is being fed by the wrong person then. I am voting for Obama (in fact, I already have) and I own numerous guns. The next one I purchase will be a Cooper Firearm.

Elfman -

when the gun owners biggest enemy ever is running for the presidency, it would be common sense to keep your mouth shut if you work in the gun industry and support that fool.

Cooper exercised his 1st Amendment right...good for him, but he paid the price for it. the consumers spoke and do not want to do business with a company that is in the camp of the enemy.

We made it clear - we don't do business with people who "cut deals with the devil"

Elfman:
I don't speak of Cooper in that context, I speak of ASAH. Since the author mentioned ASAH, it seemed relevant to point out that they lobby for restrictions of 2nd amendment rights, and say they are "pro-hunting" as if it had anything to do with the 2nd amendment. They are manifestly anti-rights.

Cooper is free to speak his mind, people are free to boycott if they feel so motiviated. Certainly anyone who advocates violence toward him, or unlawful activity should be of great concern, and should be investigated appropriately.

7.62:

...and the citizens of the United States of America will make it painfully clear to you tomorrow if it is not already by the polls... we will not stand for a bull-in-a-china-shop presidency anymore!! We will not stand for the fear tactics and lies. We will not stand for any of it!! Obama wins!!

Let's talk again in 4 years and see whether Obama has stolen our 2nd Amendment rights. In the meantime, I will be buying Cooper Firearms.

All this whining about people not supporting Cooper sounds a lot like what happened back in 2000 when Smith & Wesson cut a deal with the Clinton Administration. S&W;'s agreement to crack down on civilian firearm sales would have earned the company lucrative govenment contracts.

The reaction was swift and S&W;was targeted by gun owners for destruction. The spineless Brits who owned S&W;at the time ended up selling the company to someone more patriotic.

At that time, there were rumblings around the Clinton Camp that people who spoke out against S&W;would be charged under RICO with conspiring to destroy S&W;.

Again, I think that Cooper Firearms needs to go away. There are plenty of other firearm manufacturers who, day in and day out, work to support the rights of their customers. Dan Cooper decided to take his customers' money and use it to kick them in the teeth.

Sorry if the 60 some-odd employees lose their jobs - but those are the sacrifices one must make to preserve freedom.

But, then again, maybe Obama will force us all to buy Cooper's tainted rifles. Ya think?

"... spew out such poison" ?

You my want to remind your poster, Larry Kralj, that calling people "whackjobs" is neither civil, respectful, nor on-topic.

Back on topic, Mr. Cooper is, of course, free to contribute to any candidate he chooses, and even to make public statements about those contributions, just as other private citizens are free to comment on his choices and base their purchase decisions on them.

The question that always crosses my mind about this is what the response would be if Mr. Cooper had contributed to David Duke's campaign instead.

gwalchmai - would you support David Duke?

Larry Kralj ~
OK, you aren't a single issue voter, I doubt that any of the rest of these posters are either.

OH, the assumptions we make.

By Elfman, 11-03-08
gwalchmai - would you support David Duke?

No. Would you? (And how is this on-topic?)

Elfman -

funny you speak of this when your savior has political hit squads already. you're concerned about free speech, but you're supporting a man who does not respect free speech at all.

drink the kool-aid.

To anyone else at Sportsman's Warehouse that wants to know:

I will not be shopping at your establishment again until you restore your full vendor relationship with Cooper Firearms. It appalls me to think of the amount of money I have spent at your Missoula store, only to see you instantly cave to a few 2nd Amendment extremists. You cowards. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And the same goes for the rest of you that would destroy a man, his family and his employees' livelihood just to make a political point. We may, as Elfman suggests, continue this discussion in 4 years when its clear that Obama has no intention of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in a reasonable manner.

It's one thing to represent the interests of a constituency in a small, urbanized district (Obama's record in Illinois) and another to run the country, representing all Americans. I have full confidence in the ability of the man to know the difference. No, I'm not worried about my gun rights and my next purchase will be a Cooper.

Some people just don't get it.

There is a side issue to all of this. That is, the power that we, the people, actually hold. We have witnessed this three times in the last year.

In mid-Feb. of 2007, Jim Zumbo made a rather stupid blunder on his Outdoor Life Web-Bolg. The results were immediate and rather spectacular.

Then in May of 2007, we had the immigration reform bill come up in Congress. Once again, through the efforts of people on discussion forums, and many internet blogs, the Congress was inundated and the bill defeated.

The bill surfaced again in the summer of 2007 and was defeated. Again by the action of people utilizing the internet.

Now, we have the Dan Cooper affair. In the space of 2 days, Mr. Cooper resigned in order to save his business.

Mr Schneider, what you are looking at, are people, gun-owners in this instance, that have learned that they actually have the power to force change. Attack Dogs of the Gun Lobby? Hardly. Most of these people are everyday ordinary people who saw "one of our own" publicly support a politician who has been vehemently anti-gun for his entire career. With the sole exception of a (very) few comments made after the historic Heller decision, Obama is against ordinary citizens owning guns for any reason. As was in the case of Jim Zumbo, the NRA came onboard, literally, a day late and a dollar short. It was the actions of individual concerned citizens, gun owners of every stripe and political whim, that carried the day. Not the Gun Lobby.

You know, after reading your article, I come away with the distinct impression that Mr. Cooper had every right to express his opinions, but that the community which supports his business interests have no right to express their displeasure.

I agree, Mr. Cooper had every right to express his opinions. What I don't agree with, is that people like me, don't have the right to express our opinions in rebuttal. The internet has given the common man a voice and a power that before this, has been unheard of.

This is the new political reality of the day.

I just spoke with the corporate person in charge of purchasing at Sportsman's in Utah. He tells me that it’s merely a financial equation for him, and if the public buys the guns, then he will supply them in his stores. He’s stuck with many tens of thousands of Cooper guns that won’t sell. Sportsman's and Coopers are two of the biggest buyers of Coopers. If people boycott Sportsman’s Warehouse because of their decision to stop carrying Cooper Firearms, that will only exacerbate the problem for Cooper and the families here in Stevensville. I think for Cabella's and Sportsman's, it is more of a financial decision than anything. What Cooper needs right now are large buyers, like Cabella’s and Sportsman’s, seeing that their guns are still moving. These corporations are probably driven primarily by their pocketbooks.

When contacting Sportsman's, Larry told me that he had received 100s of emails expressing outrage about Cooper's donation to Obama, but I was only the SECOND person to contact him and express concern for Cooper and employees. His employees don't deserve the wrath. Help them out.


Sportsmen Warehouse Holdings, Inc.
Sportsmen Warehouse Inc.
7035 High Tech Drive
Midvale, UT 84047-3706
Phone: 801-566-6681


Dennis Highby, CEO
Cabela's
1 Cabela's Drive
Sidney, NE 69160
Phone: 308-254-5505, ask for Dennis
Fax: 308-254-4800

Just a quick comment about the photo that accompanied the above article: both the person holding the shotgun and the photographer taking the picture need a serious talking too about basic firearm safety rules. Never, ever, stand in front of the muzzle of any firearm unless it has been rendered incapable of firing. In this case the action of that side-by-side is obviously closed, and although somewhat out of focus, it appears that the person holding it has their finger in the trigger guard.

If the left boycotts someone, it's call "social justice". . If the right does it, it's call "attack dogs".

Anybody who thinks that Obama �is a stanch supporter of the right to hunt and the right to bear arms� must be using Crack Cocaine. .

Elfman ~
Dan Cooper used his position as a maker of firearms to advocate for someone that is against firearms. Had he not been the owner of Cooper Firearms he would not have been featured in USA Today.

Dan Cooper used his position to sell America a bill of goods when he endorsed Barack Obama. He was used as a pawn and he willingly went along.

Dan Cooper can sell his company to his employees, the new company could be given a respectable name hence no loss of jobs. The machinists and gun smiths who work there could become "Joe the Gun Makers" entrepreneurs that I am sure will improve their life situation providing that Obama goes down in defeat.

Tomorrow we have a National Referendum on Socialism (http://daryl-l-hunter.blogspot.com/2008/10/referendum-on-socialism.html) and hopefully America will vote against socialism.

– That would be opposite of the way that Dan Cooper Voted.

I'm all for boycotts. I still don't buy Exxon gas after that little tanker incident up in Prince William Sound...
But, I think the firearms industry misreads their customer base. The "black gun" crowd is loud, vicious and a subset -- a minority of all gun owners and potential gun owners. "Brown gun" sportsmen who still think for themselves and vote for whoever they want represent the bulk of the market. And many of them get really pissed off at intimidation tactics.
Given the relative quality within the firearms spectrum, this Cooper boycott sounds like a bunch of Yugo owners saying they'll never buy a Luxus.

Dear Al Norris,

I'm not going to address a lot of issues that have come up in this thread and others, but I would like to your comment, which I believe was given with sincerity.

Everybody has a right to make a personal decision not to buy from a certain company. I have done this many times. The difference is going out in a deliberate campaign to destroy the entire company for what one of its owners said. That's a completely different deal.

For example, I had a disagreement with the owner of the auto dealer where I bought my last pickup truck, and I've decided not to buy another vehicle from him, but I am not encouraging everybody I know to email his customers advocating a boycott so his business goes bankrupt, or has to sell, or is "crushed."

Bill

JAYoung - you are a real hoot!

Actually, the "black gun crowd" has been carrying the lard-assed "brown gun sportsmen" for years. If the gun rights movement had been left up to you guys, we'd be looking Britain-style gun control right in the muzzle.

As we've seen from the AHSA, "divide and conquer" is how the gun grabbers plan to realize their goal of domestic disarmament. So, if you really are a gun owner. Really, really, are a gun owner. Don't be fooled by Obama and his gun-hating pals.

Jeremy:

Looks like S. Warehouse is full of it. He told you that you were only the second person to contact him on behalf of Cooper? BS. He is lying as should be evident from the email I just received from him. I know of several people who have attempted to contact him in the same manner I have. I even posted my email to him above after which I received this response (excerpt):

"...This is an emotional issue for many of our customers and we have seen emails from many points of view..."
Larry Knight
Sr. Vice President of Hard Goods
Sportsman's Warehouse"

So, Larry: Have you really only heard from "two" people or have you received emails espousing "many points of view" as you represented to me? You best figure out what your story is and stick to it. You just put the nail in the coffin of my future patronage of SW. I do not like being bullshitted. The truth is that you are succumbing to the pressure of a group of people that "JAYoung" described so accurately above: "The 'black gun' crowd is loud, vicious and a subset..." This is so, so true. It will not surprise me if it is true that SW and Cabela's are getting more "crush Cooper" correspondence than those in support of free speech (no need to point out that he technically has the right to free speech. I know he does but does one really have the "right" to free speech when the result of speaking your mind results in the complete destruction of your world by angry, vindictive partisans?)

Hear me and hear me loud and clear: I am a proud gun owner and a proud supporter of Obama!

The Environmental Ranger is a pagan? Oh, thanks for that gem.

Robert:
Political intolerance?
Let's go back a bit. There was Bill Ruger saying his company wouldn't produce detachable magazines over ten shots, that was a pander to anti-gunnies, most of whom don't really understand the technicalities or physics of firearms. You ought to see the youtube of Carolyn Moloney parsing the language of the gun ban bill she sponsors.
Then there was Smith and Wesson. The Tompkins group, apparently a British venture firm, bought S and W and then lined up behind the Clintons on gun issues.
I presume they thought the favor would be returned in gummint contracts in their LE market, while their competitors would suffer, eh?
Wham! Their sales tanked, the company went up for sale, and now S and W is back under American ownership and doing relatively well...making an AR-15 derivative no less!
Then there was Jim Zumbo -- "I'veneverusedanAR15butIthinkthosethatdoarebent"
What made Zumbo's comment especially irritating was his lack of firsthand experience. He got what he deserved. Even though Ted the Nuge has straightened him out, and he is "rehabilitated," had he not been slammed, I bet he'd be a spokescreature for good old AHSA.
Finally, while I think Cooper rifles and the story of the company are just wonderful, I can't understand what Cooper thought he would accomplish putting cash down on Obama not just this year, but way back in 2004 as well as in 2007. And I wonder about his support of John Morrison in 2006. I don't think John is a Second stalwart.
The simple fact of the matter is that constitutional rights have a tendency to erode rather than accrete. It is a fact that the Bill of Rights has seen some serious decline during the Bush years.
Should we accept that, or claw our way back?
It's also dang near a fact that we can expect OTHER hunks of the Bill of Rights to suffer under an Obama administration.
Should that be tolerated?
What scares me is that I even have to ask if it should.

If Mr. Cooper didn't want the flack, perhaps he should have kept his personal political preferences out of the interview. Like on many other issues, I can't tell where Barack Obama really stands on gun rights. But regardless, Barack Obama is part of the Democrat party who has traditionally been the worst on gun rights. My private gun ownership rights are extremely important to me, and I relate well to the quote I heard some time ago: "Remember, when your life is in danger and seconds count, the police are only minutes away." I think Cooper received well-deserved attention.

Kinda silly to attack Mr. Cooper. He's easy. Hey, I've got a great idea. If you guys want to take someone down, GO FOR THE GOVERNOR! You see, he's laughing at you and your silliness. He's supporting Cooper. Don't pick on the easy prey. Makes you look like a bunch of weenies. Go after the head guy! Just a thought.

Bill Schneider is obviously a tool for the anti gun lobby. He is a pretend outdoor writer just as American Hunters and Shooter Association is a fake "gun" group created to support anti gun forces. Writers like this are great for gun control people but if you shoot and hunt I suggest that instead of running web searches on Copper Arms you instead research the American Hunters and Shooter Association and also Obama's record of supporting extreme measures to remove your right to own firearms.

Most of the comments here say it all. There were no "Gun-lobby attack dogs." Just normal people responding to what they consider an outrage. What if NAACP was found to be sending money to the Ku Klux Klan? Do you think the "Attack dogs" would stop sending donation checks?
Cooper makes bolt action rifles.
Funny, Obama never mentioned banning bolt action rifles. So Cooper thought he was safe supporting him. Well, guess what, some of your customers also like handguns, and AR-15's, and magazine fed shotguns. In fact, most of them do. And Obama has said from his own mouth that he wants to ban many of them.
So, maybe the rifles you sell are nice ones, but when the public finds out that some of the money they spend is going to finance someone that wants to restrict their rights, sales will drop off dramatically.
Gun owners are afraid right now, and rightfully so. We endured 10 years of the "Assault Weapon" ban, and we all celebrated when it finally expired. We could finally buy modern rifles again. Obama wants to bring it back and make it permanent. We've fought hard for concealed carry rights, Obama wants to restrict them. Yes, I am afraid. We are in danger of losing our rights that we have fought to keep. All I can say is if Obama wins, I "HOPE" he doesn't have the support of Congress to steal our freedoms.
Bottom line, if you are for Obama, you are against gun owners.
Choose a position and live with the consequences.

Elfman said "Let's talk again in 4 years and see whether Obama has stolen our 2nd Amendment rights. In the meantime, I will be buying Cooper Firearms."

If Barack Hussein Obama has his way all semi-automatic firearms will be banned and your next purchase will have to be a Cooper or something similar.

This is not about 1st amendment rights. No one is saying that Dan Cooper can't speak his mind and support who wants to support. Being a free society he will also have to suffer the consequences of doing so. This is his own doing.

Speedracer: so you apparently think that the consequences Cooper is suffering are just? You think a man should lose his livelihood over a difference of opinion as to what candidate to support?! That is sick. Really sick.

Also, I love the way you refer to Obama with the use of his middle name. This is incredibly disingenuous. Anyone who would use Barack's middle name to attempt to associate him with a terrorist dictator needs to get a life. Now you may say pleading innocence... "What?! That is his name, isn't it?!" Yes, it is his name. Now that we agree that Hussein is his name perhaps you would like to tell us why that is important? Tell us all why the fact that his middle name is Hussein is important... be specific please. Cannot wait to read your answer.

You are just desperate because you will lose tomorrow. Hell, you may even lose Montana to Barack at this point!! Keep it up!

Except for the gun issue, I pretty much agree with Obamas cultural views-- pro-abortion, etc. And yes, the "War on Drugs " is really a civil war on black people. But his past antigun stance makes me vote for his opponent. "Freedom of choice" should also include the choice to keep and bear arms.

Thank you Mr.Schneider for responding directly.

I believe the point I was trying to make is that as a business owner, Mr. Cooper was responsible for any backlash that might attach itself to his business, in making comments about his contributions (Attorney David Hardy has tracked them all down) to a particular candidate.

Ultimately, this has nothing to do with his right to support who he wants. It's about his fiducial responsibility to his company.

It sounds like Mr. Cooper's career died by thousands of doses of 1st Amendment.

To Elfman:
Let me ask you this.
If it was found out that that the owner of company X that sells printing presses and publishes newspapers was found to be supporting a candidate that calls for free speech bans and shutting down newspapers, do you think it would be unreasonable that people using his services would choose another publisher?
Would it be "sick" if people starting talking to their friends on the blogs and telling them about company X's practices?
The fact is, people who value their rights don't want to support someone who seems not to.
I don't know enough about Cooper to make judgement, but if he sends money to Obama, then he is probably not a supporter of the kind of rights I find valuable.
Pardon the pun, but I can't resist, he really shot himself in the foot on this one.

Elfman,
What you fail to understand is that we, as Americans, are free to spend our money where we see fit. Dan Cooper (and Zumbo) both bit the hand that feeds them.

I suppose you have never boycotted a business for business practices you disagree with. Pity, voting with ones wallet is much more effective than what we'll be doing tomorrow.

Now as for the full name... If I typed "John Sidney McCain III" would that be wrong? How about "George Walker Bush"? "William Jefferson Clinton"? "John Fitzgerald Kennedy"? So ask yourself instead, why are you so sensitive about the man's name.

BTW, I don't need BHO's middle name to associate him with terrorists, he does that for me. Look up William Ayers.

Mr. Schnieder said:

> I wrote about the American Hunters and Shooter Association
> (AHSA), which is, regardless of the repeated falsehoods
> circulated by the same gun activists, a pro-hunting, pro-gun
> alternative to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and actually
> tries to represent both hunters and gun owners.

...unless you're a gun owner who owns and enjoys shooting a .50BMG rifle, or a .223 AR-pattern rifle, or any other scary Evil Black Rifle.

...unless you are a gun owner who wants to buy a gun from a buddy in a face-to-face transaction.

...unless you are a gun owner who does not believe an organization that is in bed with the Brady Bunch is actually working to protect anyone's firearms rights.

...unless you are a gun owner who believes an organization that endorses a candidate who has stated he does not believe people should be allowed to have guns is actually working to protect anyone's firearms rights.

I don't mean to be gratuitously insulting, but you, sir, are a Useful Idiot.

The inner city ghettos are awash in guns, and will be no matter what Obama or the Democrats try to do. However, there are many more guns per capita in rural areas, and very little of the uncontrolled mayhem and murder that is ongoing in inner city America. The mayhem is tolerated by society, by the white guilt purveyors, by the insane immigration policies that politicians regard as a third rail if they attempt to change them, by the "gotcha", poisonously partisan Congress, by ethnic and racial politics at the local level, and by drug money. Obama ain't gonna change that. Not with his history of appeasement and siding with his Rev. Wright, and Mr. Ayers, and his Bernadette. Obama is not a solution as long as he is hanging out with the problem.

It is not Indians from Asia coming here to engineer hardware and create soft ware, take over the "C" store and gas station, another motel, that are the problem. Not the Brits or Canadians wanting to make a dime, and have their health problems taken care of by their paying for medical care when they need it, not when the System says they can avail themselves to it. The problem is mostly from south of our border, and the mayhem is about drugs and who can sell them and where. If they can put tons of drugs, daily, on our shores, rest assured they can also put the arms needed to dish out their deadly justice to infringement on their merchants of death business dealings.

Our cops are compromised by huge sums of drug money, as are our politicians. So why would you ever think that a South Chicago neighborhood organizer, a ward heeler from the Daly Machine, from smack dab in the middle of the mayhem, could be the saviour of our economy and not take away rights? What kind of economics does he think he knows? His past comments preserved on video tape and CD tell us he would want to change the Constitution by Supreme Court decision to include reparation payments to minorities. His accepted experience outside of limited legislative experience in a state legislature and a short part of one term in the US Senate of which he has spent the preponderance of his time running for President, is community organizer in the epicenter of what is wrong with America. Right where the guns are. Right where guns a guy like me would or could not ever buy are sold like candy at the corner store. And will be, no matter what regulations are put on the vast majority who think that what makes this country sustain itself, persevere in a world evidently now going mad, is that when the going gets tough, at least you will be able to hold out or prevail over rogue government only because you are guaranteed the right to be armed, to be able to bring yourself and your weapon to the militia to defend your country. Never, in any other country, has this right, this threat to tyranny, been so seriously defended, and continues to be seriously defended. You is or you ain't. Very simple. There is no grey area. No parsing of Clintonesque words. No wish or wash. There really is a line in the sand of American freedoms. This right to keep and bear arms is right up there. "Don't Tread on Me."

The more amazing facet of this conversation is that we even need it, let alone, it seems, on almost an annual basis. The threat, at home and by money from abroad, to our being armed and dangerous, in liberal minds, is here to stay. So the liberals are attacking gun ownership annually. If you vote for their guy, you are voting to have to fight to keep the shooter you so prize. And the right to buy bullets for it. And powder. And to own the bullets and powder. They are not quitting any time soon. This deal is ongoing, and as long as the left is here to bring socialism, the nanny state, public ownership of all things material, to their supporters, this fight is ongoing.

Barry Goldwater said once, that a government big enough to give you everything you wanted was also big enough to take everything you have. It is like he was prescient of Obama's rise to candidacy.

We need to only enforce our laws, penalize the guilty, and confiscate the weapons used in crimes on a much larger scale than we now practice. White power groups, convicted felons, inner city gangs, narco-trafficers, illegal aliens, no group should be off limits. If you are using arms to commit crimes, you are going away for a long time to some form of punishment that will keep you away from the populace, guns, and the influence in the 'hood.

Better than being so upset at illegal arms use, our government should be doing what good parents do, and that is to redirect the attention of the recalcitrant youths to a more productive life. In my simple mind, as a person who has enjoyed the fruits of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps of the Depression era) projects in the west for most of my life (and I still have anger and distrust of the USFS Rangers who burned the CCC trail shelters, and removed the masonry fit pits and iron grills in Wilderness after 1964), I think that there is a place to replace drug sales and gun use with meaningful work for the public good, in exchange for clothes, supervision, three squares, a place to sleep, and the satisfaction of falling asleep after a hard day of good work. Better we distract the youth with another task, a better and safer time, than to keep up this war in the streets of so many cities in the U.S.

I read last year Mayor Ron Dellums' Oakland, California, had not suffered a war loss to a resident from his city in either Iraq or Afghanistan. None. Zero. Is that a testament to Dellum's anti military stance for so many years in Congress as an uber liberal Democrat? Or is it just hard for a person from Oakland to enter the military due to all those little barriers like being a convicted felon? Having a GED or high school degree? Being drug free? Being able pass the readin', writin', 'rithmatech test?

It was in a story in USA Today about all the cities of over 100,000 that had not lost a kid to the wars. Oakland was the largest at 400,000 souls. But in 2007, there were about 145 murders in Oakland, and 650 people had been shot and NOT killed. Just wounded. Sounds like a war zone to me. And right in there with Oakland were Richmond, Daly City, and Berkley, California. Gee. Another three cities with daily shootings, and at least weekly murders in the streets. The Bay Area sounds like it is as dangerous to Americans as Iraq is for American military, maybe very much more so. The total number of Americans killed in these detested wars is miniscule compared to deaths on our own streets over that time by murder and mayhem from inner city gangs and gang wars. Many times more. Many, many times more. A sickening, terrible number of mostly kids and young adults killed because that is what they do, and how they live. Few innocents die. Most are purposeful, directed killings. Premeditated murders. Thousands each year. And if you take away all the legal guns, theirs will still be killing people.

I could take the cheap shot, and say that rural America, where jobs are limited and the National Guard part time work can make a difference between homelessness and security, and say that is why so many very small towns have lost residents to death in the military in the last 6 years. Our over dependence upon National Guard soldiers to augment a Clinton Democrat weakened militray. That, and you can't be a felon, a street hood, a gangbanger, and an education drop out and be a Guardsman or regular military. And those very small rural towns that have lost so much in comparison to an Oakland have a lot more guns per capita than big cities. Their people just are not inclined to use them to shoot each other. Maybe themselves in suicides, but suicide by gun is more certain than most other methods. You can get the job done without guns but it takes more effort. To lose your freedom to be in an armed militia because it will slightly reduce the suicide rates in an increasingly psychotic society is little reason to toss the Constitution in some sort of feel good exercise that will have bad results down the road. What other Constitutional provisions do we need to ignore or quit?

It is very reasonable for people who feel strongly about their right to keep and bear arms to mount fast, strong, vocal opposition to any who have the inclination to seek laws to subvert the Constitution. Patriotic at the least. And it is not in any sense more strident than the outpourings from the left on any challenge to Roe v. Wade. (Gee...is this another jab at when does life begin and end? yep.) That was not even addressed by the Founding Fathers, but did come down as a Supreme Court decision that can be overruled at some time in the future without amending the Constitution. The gun deal was addressed and upheld last year by the Supreme Court, if I am not mistaken. Another court, in another time, might change that Constitutional interpretation. I doubt it right now.

What people say. How they spend or earn their money. All have aspects of personal responsibility tied to them. My biggest gripe with merchants, my whole life, is that they don't have public opinions because that might affect their commerce. Economic cowards. Fraidy cats. A whole lot of Main Street business types don't ever express any political opinions or views because the are tied to the purse strings of their business neutrality. Commerce is neutral. Until a person has enough money that it makes not one whit of difference if his opinion irritates someone. That is why we see so many public servants on city councils, boards, and commissions. The businessman can't hold an opinion or he might be subject to boycott. A fact of life, that. We have just seen that in action again.

It is a problem that politics and public policy can only be addressed by non-profit advocates, school teachers and public employees, anyone who is not making his or her living selling a product and service to the public. We are fast into government by government, for government, and government only. From dog catcher to fireman to union worker to state employees and federal employees. And lawyers. You use the best lawyer, no matter their political leanings. But grocer, gas station, barber, you can chose to patronize the eunuchs of commerce and NOTSO free markets.

The gun owner base is once again galvanized by loose lips in commerce. I will bet Obama wishes this never had come up so close to election time. Are you trying to torpedo his election, Bill, by writing about it?

Speedracer: Cite for me where I suggested that Americans do not have the right to spend their money where they wish? Do not misrepresent my statements.

You say Zumbo and Cooper bit the hand that feeds them. Well, I am gun owner/buyer (at least 6 or 7 presently) and my hand feels just fine... my trigger finger is steady. So, they did not bite my hand and I will go out of my way now to support Cooper. As you said, Americans have the right to spend the money where they wish. I will spend it at Cooper and NOT at Cabela's or Sportsman's Warehouse anymore. That is my right. You can shop at the big outfits to your heart's content and that is also your right. What disgusts me is the vindictive, mean-spirited attempt to "crush" a man. We are not talking a faceless multinational corporation here. We are talking about a man... a Montanan... a shooter... a hunter. You and others like you have now set out to completely destroy him, his family and employees simply because he does not agree with you as to who the next president should be. That, "my friends", is what makes my stomach turn. You should be ashamed that your desperation has led you to this point.

You think I am sensitive about Barack's name?! Quite the contrary, you are the one who thinks it means something that his middle name is common with the now dead leader of a country that we have invaded and nearly destroyed. I asked you to explain why his middle name means anything and you decline. Why? Because you know you are full of it. People do not go around calling people by their full name. However, due to the formality of the proceedings I believe a President Elect is referred to in his full name when he is sworn in. I will be smiling and thinking of you, speedracer, when I hear "Barack Hussein Obama" in January.

Haven't you heard the old question: "What's in a name?"

Barebate is verily oozing with white supremacy today...

The second amendment has never been about hunting rights, It exists to keep tyrants in check.
support of tyrants will not be tolerated.

Patriot: You have got it exactly right. The second amendment exists to keep tyrants in check. Of course, on a grander scale our entire democratic process serves the exact same purpose. Hence, tomorrow we will be voting out tyranny and YOUR next president will be President Barack Hussein Obama. Try reciting it now to yourself. You will need to get used to it. The tyrants will be out of power finally.

So you think that resigning as CEO of his business will destroy his life? Is it really that simple? I doubt that. He's in damage control mode now.

The internet has given us a new age of grassroots politics and what you're observing are citizens reacting with their own 1st amendment rights. This isn't about high priced lobbyists, as the headline would have us believe, this is about the common man making his voice heard. Cabelas and Sportsmans are free to do as they wish, and I suspect will follow the dollar wherever it leads them.

You claim to have 6 or 7 firearms (apparently you're not really sure), and yet you voted for the man who has worked, and voted repeatedly, to take them from you. He even refused to sign the amicus brief the senate sent on the Heller case. As a U.S Senator he has sworn to uphold the U.S. Consitution, but has shown that he likes to pick and choose which parts and those parts don't include the 2nd Amendment. Smart move, Elfman. What other rights and freedoms are you willing to give up?

Joyce Foundation, ACORN, Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Daly, Blagojevich... I guess Obama's "typical white woman" grandmother forgot to tell him you're judged by the company you keep.

Go ahead, say it: President John Sidney McCain III... I knew you could. And I don't even mind you using his full given name.

If you people had even the least exposure to Chicago-style politics, you wouldn't be so gleeful over the prospect of a dirty Chicago political crook like Obama winning the election.

Read up a little on the history of the Blagojevich administration if you want a preview of what having Obama in the White House would be like.

Dan Cooper makes some of the best rifles in the world. His political opinions and what candidate he supports are his own business.

But I am concerned about the last paragraph of this story:

"Now we know why politicians won’t push for gun control. They’re terrified of these gun extremists and their new weapon of mass destruction, the Internet. Who can blame them? How incredibly sad it is, but the gun lobby’s attack dog strategy works--because we let it work."


Gee, and all this time I thought politicians didn't push for more gun control because most of them believe in upholding the US Constitution, and respecting the Supreme Court decisions.

I had no idea that it was just fear of popular dissent that was holding them back.

Live and learn, I guess. Hmmmmm.

Elfman: I'm no fan of Bush, never voted for him. That does not mean I'm willing to turn our great country into a socialist hell hole in the name of "change".
When your hero Obama gets elected tomorrow you need to immediately cut your nuts off, put on a beret and a striped shirt and fall in lockstep with your European brothers. I'm sure you will feel enlightened.

Jed....what is it that I am "oozing with white supremecy today?"

Quote the newspaper? Not bury my head in the sand? I am, every day, for 15 years, the only Anglo working for a naturalized Mexican American who employs several hundred people a year. The only Anglo. The only person not Hispanic on the payroll in this century. And you know what it is that bothers the crap out of me? Every one of those workers, right up to the owner, is afraid of the Narcotrafficers. Every one. My boss was embezzled by his Hispanic lady book keeper for hundreds of thousands of dollars. She got the mail and was able to keep the bad shit from him. And the only time he knew he was being stolen from was when she did not show up for work, and her name was on the front page of the paper in big drug dealing bust. Did he every press charges? Nope. Afraid. Scared spitless. And close to broke two years later. This Latino drug deal is pervasive in that community. Deeply pervasive. The threats to family below the border are legend. Real people die daily from narco terror. On both sides of the border.

The deal with minority gun deaths in Oakland, CA, is real. Google it. And Google the USA Today story about the 70 or more towns with over 100,000 population that have not had to bury a local kid killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is not white supremacy oozing out. That is the facts of a very sad story.

Most people are not old enough to remember when guns cost money, most people had none, and inner city kids made them from copper tubing, and a rubber band/nail deal for a firing pin and trigger. Copied, I suppose, from a throw away the US and Allies air dropped to partisans in Europe fighting the Nazi Armies. Single shot .45 cal. Made of tin and a short steel barrel. The gang bangers called them "zip" guns. And they did kill people.

Those were the days of "switchblade" knives. baseball bats. brass knuckles. and zip guns. Mayhem on a somewhat less lethal level. mostly.

Random acts of violence are world wide, and there are many, many places sane people would not travel to. That they want to bring that level of wanton killing to the U.S. is something we should not tolerate. It is people doing the violence. Some with guns, and others with anything close at hand to deal blunt force trauma. People killing people. It is driven by drugs. It is a war. Aptly called the "drug wars." or it is driven by ideology or obtaining material goods. When you have a lot of people, hundreds of millions of people, not all have your best interest at heart. That is not white supremacy. That is facts talking. The is taking a realistic look at where we are. What to do about it is another matter. I just happen to not think that gun control, and confiscation of legally owned, responsibly used fire arms is the answer.

Racism is when someone says they are voting for the person who looks like them without one mention of ideology, politics, the candidate's personal qualities of the mind and past record. I am voting for him or her because he or she looks like me. When the election is over, and the votes counted, the exit polls have been taken, tell me who the racist voters are in this country. The exit polls should produce a semblance of a record. Then you will have something to talk about.

Speedracer: Seen the polls? This election is over. I think you are the one who needs to start practicing your pronunciation. Those evil, terrorist names are sometimes hard to pronounce. Better get used to it. You will have AT LEAST 4 years of President Hussein (as I presume you would prefer to call him). Say it! I know you can!

Gotta love the irony. LOL

When gay-lesbian groups boycott companies for not providing domestic partner benefits, is that just as bad as this? Methinks the author would view that rather differently.

I am a law abiding firearms owner and I support the 2nd Amendment and I support the 1st ammendment, also.

Dan Cooper exercised his First Ammendment rights and so did the gun owners that did not agree with him. Seems he was outnumbered.

Mr. Cooper is obviously a smart man and started and ran a successful business. You have to wonder what he was thinking when he publicly endorsed Barack Hussein Obama. He had to know that his customers would not take this lightly. He is responsible for his own actions.

And, Mr. Bill Schneider, you exercised your 1st Ammendment rights to publish this biased story to spin the blame towards gun owners. You shouldn't be surprised by the same type of reaction from the same people that spoke out against Mr. Cooper. Maybe this will get you that job at The National Enquirer that you have always wanted.

Note to Dan Cooper:
Don't sh!t where you eat.

Larry sez:

> Note to Dan Cooper:
> Don't sh!t where you eat.

Dan Cooper makes bolt actions, not ARs.

(G,D&R;...)

Freekin' paranoid whack jobs. I hear guns sales are through the roof in the run-up to the election. You're what's wrong with this country. You bitch about the constitution, and elect and the re-elect a guy who shits all over it while giving the world the finger.

Warms my heart to know that come Tuesday night you'll be coming to terms with a black man as your Commander in Chief.

Guess I better shoot my elk tomorrow in case they come to take my guns away...

Zumbo for President 2012.

-CAMT-

Our Governor fully supports Mr. Cooper and his right to speak out. I don't see any of you attacking him. WHY is that??

The funny thing is when people like the author try and convince people that the AHSA is a pro-gun organization and alternative to the NRA. Sure it's an alternative if you favor losing what rights we have now in owning guns. The group is nothing more than a democRAT shill group started to try and confuse gun owners in that they are a gun rights organization. They accept Brady campaign money and have anti-gunner fingerprints all over that phony gun organization. They are about as pro-gun as Obama is.

As for Copper, I GLADLY sent emails detailing how I wouldn't own a Cooper rifle if Dan Cooper came to my door and offerred one to me for nothing. I also applaud Sportsmans Warehouse and Cabelas for making the decision they did. In the time we are in there is NO ROOM for traitors, and that's exactly what Dan Cooper is, in the pro gun rights struggle.

Anyone wanna bet what side of the fence the author of this retarded piece is? He's nothing but a joke. Just another democRAT huckster trying to sell honest, freedom loving gun owners a bill of goods.

Good Riddance to Dan Cooper.

Larry

Black man's going to be you president Larry!

-CAMT-

Zealots and fundamentalists, regardless of the issue, are motivated by one thing - fear. It is how they motivate themselves and it's how they recruit others into their ranks. It's ironic to see people with guns so fearful.

This story and the strain of comments proves one thing about the internet: anonymity is a coward's paradise. Most of those who commented on this issue are cowards. Fearful cowards, regardless of how tough their handle sounds. Don't you have jobs?

Californiamontanacan:

What difference does the candidate's race make? The race of the candidate only matters if you're a racist.

I don't like Obama because he is a dirty politician. The fact that he is half-White is of no consequence.

Wait until Eddie Vrdolyak starts to sing! Obama may be the first president-elect who gets indicted before taking his oath of office.

LOL - this guy will be an even bigger embarrasment than GWB.

It's a shame America can't come up with better candidates.

Go Bob Barr!

The 1st Amendment only applies to retaliation from the government, not from private citizens.

Citizens have the right to boycott businesses that displease them. You think Sarah Brady and her bunch will keep Cooper in business?

Nope...it's only the firearms owners that can. And we have spoken.

John, I say it because I have a feeling it really chaps some asses around here. This talk of 'Hussein'? Give me a break. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I say it because the *rabid* pro gunners should realize their company. Under educated, low earning, bigoted racists. Not all, but that's the wide brush stroke for you.

-CAMT-

Sportsman's Warehouse in Bozeman claims that they are NOT retaliating against Dan Cooper and that they will still sell Cooper Firearms. Just talked to them at 16:48 3 Nov 08.

I told them I would remain their customer so long as they weren't caving in to the craziness and bullying of a bunch of Keyboard Kowboyz.

> If Barack [censored] Obama has his way all semi-automatic
> firearms will be banned and your next purchase will have to
> be a Cooper or something similar.

Er... no. High-powered precision sniper rifles that penetrate police body armor at hundreds of yards are also to be banned as soon as feasible.

Gun worshipers are the most easily frightened people in the world. Easy targets for mind control too, as this incident proves.

They want to feel like victims. They love the violent fantasy of Rambo-ing to protect Precious. Reality is soooo boring -- ya can't shoot anyone for what they think! But they can make plenty of innocent people suffer. So they do.

Of course, they made the same paranoid claims about Clinton 16 years ago. Do they admit that they were wrong? Nope. In 2012, as Bible Spice gets them all worked up by winking in secret code, they will not admit that they were wrong in 2008.

But guess what? The intelligent people who are about to try to clean up Bush's enormous mess could not care less about your gun. There are bigger fish to fry. Besides, liberals are generally OK with fetishism.

Sorry. No one is coming for your guns. Now stop your fainting spells. You're an embarrassment.

When they betray our rights, they are no longer "our own".

bathsheba:

"Gun worshipers"? Try Liberty Worshipers.

How were firearms rights advocates wrong about Clinton? Was the 1994 crime bill and its outright ban of a bunch of firearms for little more than looking scary just a paranoid hallucination?

How is Obama's stated hope to restore and expand that ban not "coming for our guns"? How is Obama's stated hope for a federal-level concealed-carry ban not "coming for our guns"?

"The intelligent people who are about to try to clean up Bush's enormous mess could not care less about your gun"? I hope you're right, but given the verifiable history of the actors I and many others doubt it. Those "intelligent people" have a history of trying to tell others how to live their lives - after all, they are so intelligent that they know far better than we do how our lives should best be lived, don't they?

I will, however, grant you a +2 zing on "Bible Spice". Heh!

Hey 'liberty worshiper', seen what your buddy Dubya has been doing to our liberties? Another gun nut too far gone to reason with.

Your pal,

-CAMT-

Single brain cell voters, OOPS!, I mean single issue voters have NO right to participate in democracy. They're simply too stupid. I don't care if it's abortion or gun rights. Their tiny little brains can only handle one issue at a time, and democracy requires an informed, intelligent, educated electorate. They simply are incapable of understanding that democracy is NOT predicated on the second amendment alone, nor is it the foundation of democracy. The world is a scary, complicated place. As O'Bama pointed out, these fearful little people fondle their guns for security. It's all they have left! Sad, so sad.

BTW, WHEN are these bad boys gonna take on the Guv? I mean, if they can raise a stink with Cooper, they must be really, really powerful right?..............BWHAHAAAAA! My guess is that Cooper will survive and THRIVE as result of all the publicity.

Californiamontanacan:

What makes you think I support Bush? Are you falling for the fallacy that there are only two valid points of view (i.e. parties) in the American political system?

Dear Pals, Friend, Buds, fellow western guys and especially Mike:

You said: "When they betray our rights, they are no longer "our own".

I'm glad you brought that up. Rights. Mmm. They are good.

Do you realize that other fundamental rights have vanished under your favorite leaders?

If you do not, you've let them take your eye off the ball.

Mike, you picked a lousy time in history to become a one-issue voter. We need you to admit the bitter truth, that the GOP leadership has been incompetent every which way from Sunday.

You have to calm down enough to notice that Barack Obama is a clear-headed guy who wants to get his mitts on the giant machine of government.

History shows he's prone to success. He wants the job that bad? It's crazy to not give him the chance.

If you've mainlined all that crazy paranoid talk about Obama, well, sigh, you are indeed on another planet. At which point I can only plea to pure logic. Such as your support for Bush. Bush has downturned every organization he's run. Including our country. Weird you don't seem to notice that.

Two negatives make a positive. Your opposition equals an Obama endorsement.

Then we, as neighbors, are at loggerheads. (Damn! That's the same ungodly stuff that Sunnis and Shiiiaiaiaaiis get all cranked up on.) Frankly it's hard for me to respect your single-minded obsession with a pet issue when you refuse to so much as acknowledge the vanishment of habeas corpus.

You see, without habeas corpus the joke is on you. You made sure they would never come for our guns. And they never did. They simply came for us.

In short:

1. No one is going to take our goddam guns.

2. Throw to the kid who is screaming, "Gimme a long ball, I'll get it."

p.s. I don't know about the REST of you, but I had never even HEARD of Cooper guns. Now, I'm saving for one! I'm sure others are too. You see, SOMEtimes it just doesn't pay to be stupid. Publicity is ALL good. When this entire incident is forgotten, Cooper Guns WON'T be! Damn! That's the first rule of gun saftey. Don't shoot your OWN balls off! Right, fellas?

Obama may not come and take your guns.

He'll just tax them and regulate them until it's not practical to keep them any more.

Right now, his buddies at the LCAV are floating model legislation that would require you to take 10 hours of training for every firearm you own. Think about that.

Wow, quite the thread here. Just a few words for the folks who feel like I do:

Buy. Cooper. Guns.

You will be glad you did. One, they are some of the most accurate on earth. Two, if you are willing and able to spend that kind of money on a top notch gun you will enjoy it immensely for thousands of rounds. And three, you will get to spend your money in support of your values. Dan Cooper did the right thing, Barack Obama is not going to take away your guns. Period.

Obama is a stooge of the Daley Gun Grabbing Machine. Any real gun owner who votes for him is nuts.

Wow, what a fun thread.
But I wish you folks would give THIS gunny some credit for saying that yes, Bush the Second et al, and that includes a lot of Democrat Congresscreatures, have done bad things to the Bill of Rights favorites of the Left.
I just wonder why it's okay with so many of you to ding and dent that part of the BoR that is the ultimate recourse for protecting the rest. Don't ANY of you remember that brilliant remark by Ken Toole to 60 Minutes some years back -- "If it weren't for the guns these people have, we could just laugh them off."
Think about that for a moment or two, if it doesn't hurt too much. You want our government leaders saying that to each other? Really?
I think Coopers are fine rifles, real shooters. But spendy. I can get 90 percent of the total performance out of a Savage or its bas+ard child, the Stevens. And sometimes more because that design is so tinker-friendly. Maybe some day I'll indulge myself and get that fancy toy with the Circassian walnut tiger stock and other whatnot...but when I do, you can be DANG sure I'll verify that not a dime of the profit trickles toward an anti-gun politician.
As for Logger's question, take it from this timber beast that the reason we're not bothering with Scheister is because a vote with dollars is far more powerful than a vote with a ballot -- at least on this particular matter. In politics, or in anything I guess, you do what you can that has an effect.
Finally, "Gerik" is right that Obama isn't going to take my guns. No, it'll be some "authorized government agent" all clad in Kevlar, acting "in the name of the people."

I do not think you fully understand the situation here. I fully support Mr. Cooper's right to free speech, and even more importantly, to support whomever he cares to for President or any other elected office.

I also have the inherent right to free speech and to support whomever I care to. Furthermore, I have the right to try to convince people to support the same people I do, much as Mr. Cooper did.

But, I also have the right to spend my money where I want to and for whatever reason I want to. That means I have the right to not spend my money someplace for any reason I choose. If I decide not to support Cooper Firearms based on the statements of the president and CEO of the company, it does not matter whether his statement was in support of Obama, or denigrated anything I hold dear. These rights apply to everyone, on both sides of any issue. Even you have the right to boycott something because you disagreed with the company.

If I am going to boycott a company, I honestly feel they should know why. Many gun owners also feel that way. So, when we see someone say something we strongly disagree with, we react. And we let them know how we feel and exactly why. This happened with Mr. Zumbo and it just happened with Mr. Cooper. It has happened in the past with Bill Ruger and with the Smith & Wesson company. I am confident it will happen in the future again too.

But, despair not on this. It has also happened to companies who disagreed with the left. I remember being urged to boycott lettuce because some lettuce growers would not cooperate with some unionization campaigns. I remember being asked to boycott grapes for similar reasons. I still receive letters and calls requesting boycotts of companies that disagree with the global warmi