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 warming thoughts.

Boycotts are not an NRA tactic (since the NRA had nothing to do with it) or even a tactic restricted to the conservatives or right wing. They have been used effectively by both sides. You may very well suggest a boycott in the future yourself. When you do, remember your outrage at us supporting who we desire to and boycotting those who we disagree with.

Bill,

The major flaw in your article is that you place more weight on the 1st Amendment than you do on the 2nd. Mr. Cooper exercised his 1st Amendment right to speak freely and I applaud him for that. However, he suffered consequences as his opinion was in stark contrast to the views of most of his customers.

Mr. Cooper has made a living crafting and selling firearms to firearms enthusiasts. Barack Obama has a clear history of promoting extreme, unconstitutional forms of gun control. Barack Obama is most definitely NOT a friend to sportsmen, hunters, firearms enthusiasts or those of us (like myself) who own and carry firearms for self defense.

Your blatant misrepresentation of the situation and false accusations against firearm owners makes you look even more ignorant than Mr. Cooper.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" or "sportsmen." The Second Amendment is in place specifically to protect the American people from a tyrannical government that tries to oppress them and strip them of their Constitutional rights... Much like the government Barack Hussein Obama has pledged to impose on this nation...

Looks like the main point of this article is to position AHSA as a "moderate" gun owners group. It also demonizes gun owners and the NRA who defend their Second Amendment rights.

1) The American Hunters and Shooters Association - AHSA is not a gun rights group. AHSA is run by:
Ray Schoenke, founding president who has given "millions" to Democratic politicians and has donated to the lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc.
2) Jon Rosenthal, an original founder of AHSA and Founder of Stop Handgun Violence.
3) The gun banners go out of their way to position gun owners and the NRA, GOA, JPFA as extremists. AHSA is a front group.
4) Gun owners have suffered many restrictions on our right to own guns. Some logical like restrictions on violent criminals and the mentally ill. Some pointless and ineffective like the Assault Weapon Ban which is actually a ban on ugly self loading rifles with handles.
5)As gun owners we cannot afford to allow any slack to those that want to further restrict our rights. It may be extreme but it is effective. Al Gore reaped the wrath of pro-gun voters in the 2000 Presidential race when he campaigned with anti-gun planks in his platform.
6) The foes of gun rights are relentless and unforgiving opponents who exploit any weakness we show. We must always be vigilant to stop these petty dictators that viciously infringe our constitutional right. The rapid response of gun owners to the Cooper firm's support of gun banner Obama is an unfortunate but necessary lesson to organizations that oppose our rights.

So Sportsman's Warehouse, from whom I regularly purchase all sorts of goods, has received hundreds of emails and phone calls from those who disagree with Cooper, but only a few from those who agree with Cooper.

Well, they'll be hearing from me and mine as well. If they support Cooper, they won't receive any more of my money.

Yeah, Obama may well win tomorrow, but I'm not afraid of that. I'm afraid of the voters who put him in office. A President doesn't make or break a country. He only takes the blame for the problems.

There's a reason so few intelligent people run for the office.

I will continue to speak up when one of our own speaks against us, and I will continue to speak up when someone tries to insult me and mine for doing so.

We aren't "the gun lobby", we're just people who own and enjoy real guns rather than "sporting equipment".

Cooper made a mistake and it was public record, you can't forget your customer base. We all have a right to voice our opnions well at least for the next 60 days :(

I'm a bit confused as to why there is ANY surprise or outrage. If a private citizen runs a public sales business and announces his endorsement of a candidate that will certainly alienate 50% of the general population and 95% of his customers, why would he be surprised there would be outcry? Would the director of PETA be forced out if they endorsed McCain with a public statement? Would the director of ANY large telecom company with competitors announce an endorsement of a polarizing candidate? It was a very very dumb move.
Based on the VOLUMES of evidence that Mr Obama is strongly against the 2nd amendment, and the fact that Dan Cooper does not recognize these facts from Illinois Senate votes, newpaper interviews, NPR interviews, and other documented public statements and actions made by Mr. Obama, perhaps Mr Cooper is just that... very dumb.

How noble it was when Caesar Chavez asked everyone to boycott grapes.

How is it, and when did boycotting cease to be a form of freedom of speech, just after all the Democrats boycotted Fox News?

"You don't join PETA if you own a company that makes Mink Coats"

I think that sums it up right there.
I just hope that the anti-freedom lobbyists are paying attention to what happened here.

In a perfect world we could get Governor's and Senators run out of Office this fast for encroaching on our Bill of Rights.

If something does happen in the next 4-8 years I hope some of us "extremists" wad this article up into a ball and feed it to the ignoramus who wrote the article.

See what I mean? Single issue = single brain cell! Are you guys PURPOSELY trying to be funny? Here's the problem. You aren't buying Cooper guns. Well OK then. But the VAST MAJORITY of Americans aren't buying your crap! Single issue = single brain cell. The country has moved beyond single issue simpletons, and you can't seem to understand that. You may have some legitimate points. But in the final analysis, only a moron would vote for McSenile. The moron crowd is the new minority! Hey, maybe you can demand special rights now!

Gun nuts remind me a lot of the Taliban, Al qaeda, the Crips and the Bloods. They are paranoid, violent and they threaten to kill anyone who deviates from their way of thinking.

Speaking of Obama, your next President...I suggest you culturally retarded, take a look at the impressive list of supporters which include members of the Montana Game Commission, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, National Wildlife Federation, The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership....the list goes on.
They've come together as "Sportsmen for Obama"
Could it be that they're INFORMED VOTERS??

Oh, a FAKE "logger."
HHandA, NWF, TRCP -- all part of the Pew funded "hunter and angler" wildernik Green effort to coopt the sportsman vote for their own. Just like AHSA.
Hmmm. I wonder what the Pew Trust board has on the FEC site? No surprises there, I'm sure. Pardon my sarcasm.

A hypothetical question for all of you. Say Charlton Heston (RIP) had decided to run for President of the United States. He says that he can fix the economy, improve foreign policy, and provide quick victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The public agrees with his ideas for change. The president of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke says that he agrees that he can make the changes happen. Even though Mr. Helmke knows Mr. Heston’s gun record is against the Brady Campaign’s beliefs he decides to contribute to his campaign and vote for him because of the other issues.

To all the people commenting on here, When Mr. Helmke’s position was made public do you not think that the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations would be calling for Mr. Helmke’s resignation for going against their beliefs? He would be out by the end of the day and you know it.

Did government agents in long black coats arrive in the middle of the night to arrest Dan Cooper and whisk him away to God-knows-where because he said something the government didn't like? No? No criminal charges are pending?

Then his freedom of speech was not violated.

Despite Obama's reassuring words today, his past voting record in Congress on guns is no less outrageous than that of a pro-lynching segregationist opponent of LBJ's Civil Rights initiatives.

The real questions one should be asking are:

1. If a semi-auto ban hits his desk, will Obama veto it?

2. If a performance-based ammunition ban hits his desk, will Obama veto it?

3. If a firearm/ammunition excise tax increase bill hit his desk, will Obama veto it?

4. If a gun-safety bill reaches his desk, will Obama veto it?

These are the kinds of questions that gun owners need to ask. Of course Obama isn't going to take your guns away - he's going to make you want to turn them in.

Bill Schneider has only proven that he knows nothing about what he is writing.

The First Amendment does not even apply here. The First is a limitation on Congress and the federal government generally not private citizens. It does not cover this circumstance. Get over it Bill.

If the stockholders and customers of a company see a president of that company as following standards contrary to their own there is no problem with boycotting or forcing change on the company. Coopers stance on Obama is dangerous to the Constitution and the Second Amendment. This is unforgivable since we are talking about a firearm campany. If people want him removed because his politics make him hostile to Cooper Arms than that is their right.

We are not "gun extremists" The real gun extremists are those who would put Obama in office and thereby destroy this country. He is an enemy of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Schneider, answer me this: Why are gun owners who defend and exercise not only their Second but also their First Amendment rights "extremists," while those politicians who would limit both through reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine" and support for gun seizures are moderates worthy of consideration? Mr. Cooper has every right to say what he did. Gun owners had every right to say what they did. Why is one laudable and the other "extremist"? Or do your labels depend on who agrees or disagrees with your personal political beliefs?

Nothing obamacommie nor mccommie does will make me 'want' to turn my weapons in. I possess them because I know garbage like them and the garbage who own and run this website eventually want me to.

All gun control is propaganda designed to condition the sheeple to accept further ‘control’ until the final objective, civilian disarmament, is achieved. Thus all gun control is an act of war.

When guns are outlawed "Liberal" season must begin. We may have to begin killing them sooner for other reasons. The sooner lovers of human Liberty accept this reality the better chance we have of survival.

Don't understand? Follow my links, read my quotes page first. Then share.

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

I will not support any man or company that that seeks to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.

Supporting Barack Hussein Obama does just that.

There you go, Dave Skinner. This poster above is WHY your arguments hold no water. This guy is a LOONEY. He makes no bones about it. He simply wants to "KILL" people who disagree with him. This is the type of nutjob that blows outta the water any common ground we all share. Look, ALL of us, both liberal and conservative, want to hold our government accountable so that we enjoy ALL of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. First amendment, second amendment, the whole smear. Then along comes this type of argument that repulses all reasonable people. And that's too bad. Because this guy, rightly or wrongly, pretty much becomes the stereotypical extremist gun nut. You see, the second amendment is all about parity. THAT'S what makes it so difficult and subject to interpretation. When we all carried black powder rifles, it was easy. The govt. did not outgun the citizenry. Yes, I believe with most of the admitted gun nuts that the populace needs parity. The founding fathers wanted that ace in the hole for us, and rightfully so. But this is fast becoming a moot point. As firearms become much more sophisticated and deadly, it's hard to maintain that parity. THAT is why reasonable people on both sides must come to the fore to address this issue. It is going to get much more complicated as we go. The strident, threatening, violent rhetoric from the gun nut side simply hurts their cause. And that's too bad. You see, instead of wetting their pants by boycotting Cooper, they should have used it as an opportunity to educate people about their concerns. They have done the exact opposite, which does the second amendment no favors.

Larry, you just don't understand the gun-grabbers. They are not interested in common ground or middle ground. They are not interested in compromise. They are not interested in what you believe your Constitutional rights to be. They just want to take your guns away from you.

I know a lot of you guys on here live in Montana, Idaho, etc. The problem you all have is that you are insulated from the gun control movement. On the other hand, I live in the suburban Chicago area where we gun owners have to go nose to nose nearly every day with the gun-grabbers. They will do everything and anything to take your guns away. All your guns. Your Coopers and your Dakotas and your Shilohs and your Model 70s and your Model 700s and you 870s and your 500s and High Walls and your Low Walls - all of them. The gun-grabbers draw no distinction between an elk hunter and a guy shooting CMP matches.

You need to get that straight.

Thanks Bill, for bringing attention to the zero tolerance policy of the gun lobby and its extremist right wing base. I'm reminded of the people who have chanted "KILL HIM" at recent Sarah Palin rallies. The truth is that the gun lobby has zero respect for any individual freedom that conflicts with their vision of totally unregulated access to firearms in this country. America will be a better country when more hunters and shooters stand up, defend their own, and put an end to the NRA's anti-democratic charades.

Larry Kralj said:

> See what I mean? Single issue = single brain cell!

Let's hold up a mirror for a second, shall we? A very large percentage of the liberal and liberal-leaning electorate seems to be single issue (in your terms, single brain cell) voters this year: NOT BUSH!!!

They'll happily vote for a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine as long as he's NOT BUSH!!!

They'll happily vote for someone who believes in government-mandated wealth redistribution as long as he's NOT BUSH!!!

They'll happily vote for someone with a long history of association with known, admitted and unrepentant terrorists as long as he's NOT BUSH!!!

But to drag this back on topic... Mr. Schneider seems to be proceeding from a mistaken assumption: that there is some large shadowy organization behind firearms rights advocates and their advocacy. There isn't. We're individuals expressing individual opinions.

There may be some of us (the bloggers) who note things like Mr. Cooper's statements about his campaign contributions and bring them to public attention, but there's no Evil Conspiracy giving us marching orders to attack all the poor helpless reformers trying to bring the benefits of gun control to an ungrateful and ignorant public.

Perhaps this misconception is because that's how the anti-firearms-rights side works (see the Joyce Foundation and their web of front groups) and that's the only way he can conceive of anyone getting vocal support for their political positions?

freedom4all ~

If a hypothetical right wing fascist regime took over the USA and declared martial law, will you be happy with your cooper bolt action to defend your family as a member your well regulated community Militia that the constitution gave you the right to be a member of so you could defend your community from a government run amuck?

Or would you rather have an m-16 strapped across you shoulder and a berretta 9mm in your belt?

Freedom4All:

> The truth is that the gun lobby has zero respect for any individual
> freedom that conflicts with their vision of totally unregulated
> access to firearms in this country.

That's that "gun lobby" meme again.

Pray tell, F4A, which individual freedom is in conflict with "totally unregulated access" to firearms?

Larry, notice, too, that when "waypasthadenough" gets on here and starts talking about shooting people who disagree with him politically not a single one of the gun nuts on here corrects him. Timothy McVeigh said that the "The Turner Diaries" was his "Bible." He clearly wasn't the only one.

in re. to "By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!,"

The title alone pretty much tells me all I need to know.

Did Larry even bother to go read my quotes page and educate himself? Or follow my links?

Of course not. And he won't. He's welcome to prove me wrong, and wake up to the war that has been waged against Liberty in this country for 160 years, and then help do something about it, but I'm not holding my breath.

We all know what he probably is. Those who don't, begin here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

It is very possible, indeed likely, that within the next few years that we will have to do what the Founders did, what the minutemen at Lexington and Concord did, what the southern states were forced to do by a foreign president who tried to reinforce a fortress on their soil.

Yeah, I'm getting over some of your heads, but we're all on the verge of drowning anyway.

If you want to see what will happen if we continue to tolerate "Liberal" and authoritarian evil go here:

http://willowtown.com/reality/britsinsane.htm

If we continue tolerate them we deserve what they do to us. The only limit to their evil insanity is the force we put upon it.

Share what you learn with those who care. Those who don't care can stand by the wayside, or in the cross hairs.

Dear Coast Watcher,

As I've already said earlier in this thread, I have no problem with people making a personal decision to not buy any company's product. I've done this myself several times. But vigorously and viciously going out and trying to "crush" an entire company for what one of its owners said, for having opposite political views, for having a different opinion of what's most important for the country, and then calling and driving around to local sport stores and threatening a boycott if they don't stop selling that company's product, well, that's what I call "extremist." If you aren't doing that, well, then, I'm not writing about you.

Please keep in mind that this is my opinion, right or wrong, and I'm entitled to it, just as you are to your opinion. I suffer no illusion about everybody agreeing with me, but I do try to encourage healthy discussion on important issues. That's why they call in commentary.

One more point. I stand up for my views, so I put my real name out there in cyberspace and subject myself to name-calling and threats. Most people spewing vitriol about Dan Cooper, Bill Schneider, and other "traitors" and "useful idiots" in the gun blogs and on this thread, including yourself, hide behind a non de plume. What does that say?

Bill

freedom4all:

waypasthadenough's advocacy of murder does not represent the majority of gun owners or firearms rights advocates. Anyone who thinks he *is* representative in that is delusional.

That said, many gun owners *will* defend their rights with force against those who try to remove those rights by force. That's not "shooting people who disagree with him politically".

Are you going to answer my question?

Gee, I actually agree with Bill on his final point. Which actually blows his columns central point out of the water.
Under the First, one can be held accountable for his or her exercise of the First by his or her peers, okay? Even politicians are held accountable for what they say, and I suppose Bill and I get held accountable for what we write. Business owners who hold nutty public views, or illogical ones, also get nailed to the wall on occasion.
Or, they get more business....
And I don't take anonymous political speech too seriously, like on these forums. I pay much more attention to the "name" comments. Same goes for all the crap I've gotten in my mail box lately. If there's a "name" -- great, I can at least understand their motives. If it's some bunch I've never heard of, then I would REALLY like to know who actually PAID for that scurrilous dreck so I can nail them to the wall in person.
You know, like AHSA and all the other fake groups?
The fact is, political donations are the ultimate expression of support for First Amendment-protected speech and furthermore of candidates who are trying to get in a position where they can actually IMPLEMENT what they advocate. So throwing money at Obama is a step beyond saying Obama is better than sliced white bread.
Finally, I want to raise the question...what does it say about a society where people are afraid to use their names in public discussion? Makes we want to cling to my rifles....
What is my only line of response? I can't VOTE for or against Dan Cooper, or the board of S and W, but I sure as heck can withhold my money. And I cans sure as heck say WHY I'm doing so, especially if there is a political result involved.

Pete, you're quite right. I am not familiar with the gun control fights elsewhere. All I know is what happens here in Montana. And NO ONE is gonna take our guns, not even the Feds. It just ain't a problem for us. And we need to keep that in perspective.

But I would say that there is indeed common ground between us. Many of us "liberals" like guns just as much as any rightwing extremist gun nut. You guys really should remember that. I mean, unlike a lot of folks, we here in the west grew up with guns. They are natural part of who we are. What we don't like is being told by ANYONE, the Feds or wacko gun nuts, what we must do. Hence, when we're told not to buy Cooper guns, we get pissed.

My dear children, my name, and directions to my house, are on my website.

But "Liberal" scum would rather keep lying than find that out.

And my quotes page addresses the 'murder' issue.

End of discussion. Get ready for what history shows they will attempt to force on all of us at the point of a govt. gun.

Dan Cooper exercised his rights and his customers exercised theirs, what's the problem? If I owned a gun company, I would be an idiot to support the red as a tomato Obama. If I owned a boat company I certainly wouldn't support any eviro - wacko politicians.

Funny how some you think Dan Cooper has the right to exercise his rights, but nobody else does. Another funny thing from some of you shallow folks, you say you are going to buying a Cooper, but Dan has been fired and is no longer there. You are now supporting the board that fired him! Oh the irony.

Mano! Mark it down, folks. It's a Legendary Cyber Moment, Dave Skinner and I agreeing on something! What have I done?....Bill

Larry, I guess you will have to read about us out here in the papers when they do come for our guns. Lots of dead cops, lots of dead civilians. A Waco on every block.

Eventually they'll come for you.

On this end, we'll be working hard to make sure Cooper goes bust. We have their dealer list, and there will be organized efforts in as many states as possible to disassemble the dealer network.

Should be good news for Dakota Arms.

So what a better comment on America today than to read the Drudge Report and see that Senator Liberal Jew from NYC, Chuckie "ambulance chaser" Schumer, is talking about having a "fairness doctrine" that will limit any "right wing" (read conservative Christian or any other belief not his or from the liberal left) radio to equal time with lefty liberal talk show time. Chuckie believes Freedom of Speech means equal time...and this from the guy who just outspent the Republicans by a factor of four or more, to defeat Republican candidates for the Senate. Another "free speech" issue. Which now is open to discussion. He has Feinstein, Boxer, in his camp in the story. Here in Oreygawn, we have had the most libelous, invective filled, political stink on behalf of the Democrat contender for the Senate, all financed by "fairness doctrine" advocate Chuckie Schumer's Democrats in the Senate.. Oh, lucky us.

So if you think that a Democrat majority is not going for guns, and all the other stuff they have not been able to go for because they couldn't whip a filibuster, get enough votes to go to a vote, you are sadly mistaken. A big Democrat majority is on the way, and out the door some of your rights are headed. It will happen. That is why Chuckie is doing his fortune telling on the Drudge today. He wants to be prescient. He wants to be the bellwether. He wants to be the first buzzard of spring. And will be.

Ah, now anti-Semitic attacks ("that Senator Liberal Jew from NYC")... I can only speak for myself, but I am much more concerned about these extreme right-wing gun lovers arming up with assault weapons than I am about some hypothetical "fascist regime" taking control of our government (which we haven't even come close to in 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy in this country).

These guys are as insane as McVeigh was. Really, everyone should read "The Turner Diaries" and see exactly where this violent, racist, insurrectionist mentality comes from. That was McVeigh's blueprint. And then folks should read about how our Founding Fathers responded to the Shay's Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion.

Wow! Here they come, right outta joe the plumber plumber's crack! Bearturd, you're really sumthin'. You really SHOULDN'T have a gun. You don't seem smart enough. But hey, you already knew that. BTW, just HOW MANY times have you accidentally SHOT your truck????????? Or any OTHER object? Your transmission maybe????

Everybody,

Please try to refrain from making personal remarks about other commenters. Address the issue, not the person. Thank you.

Bill

As a gun owner, avid hunter, habitat conservationist, and wildlife enthusiast, I have voiced my support for Dan Cooper’s First Amendment rights by emailing Cabela’s and Sportsman Warehouse. I have pledged not to support thier businesses unless they stand up to the political pressure of the NRA and continue carrying Cooper Firearms products.

WYOHUNTER, speaking only for myself, I sent an email to Cooper & Co. without any prompting from the NRA. I don't even know if the NRA has made any statements on this matter.

Wyohunter, you are falling for the fallacy that Mr. Schneider is pushing, namely that this boycott is the product of some dark conspiracy by the "gun lobby" and their NRA lackeys. The NRA doesn't have anything to do with it. The "gun lobby" doesn't have anything to do with it. This boycott was individual gun owners and firearms rights advocates expressing their individual opinions after Mr. Cooper's political contributions were brought to light on various gun blogs and other news sources.

I'm reposting this waaaaay down here, because I never got an answer:


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.

End

My question:

So is the article saying that the "attack dog" methods are bad, but that without them, political leaders would push for more gun control?

So it is saying that the attack dog methods are necessary, even though they are repulsive? Or what?

Or is there an assumption being made that more gun control would be great, but that "attack dog" methods have scared our noble leaders who would give it to us (and how!) if they could?


I don't get it.

Hal

Apparently, Obama's possible election is the perfect storm for psychopathic gun worshipers. The long awaited apocalyptic last stand shoot out between God fearing, gun loving freedom fighters and an army of Nazi Storms troopers directed by Commie, Pinko, Liberal, Faggot, Jewish, Socialist, African, Mexican half breeds is just about to happen. Sounds like it would make a great video game.

















w

Good point, Hal.
Dianne Feinstein would have had all those evil assault weapons "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in" had she had the votes. And I remember Obama saying "wedon'thavethevotes" when asked something similar about a renewal.
So, I would say Bill did One and Three. He'd never confess to Two, although that's equally correct.
Part of the reason my back gets up about gun control is because it is a fact that the sponsors of these bills (and, sadly, laws) fundamentally don't understand the nature of the beast they think they are trying to kill.

Sorry, Hal. I missed your questions amid all the comments yesterday.

Yes, obviously, I think "attack dog" tactics like those being used on Cooper Firearms are bad. They are beneath us. I'm embarrassed by some of the above comments and what I've been reading on gun blogs. Your word, "repulsive," is apropos.

And yes, there probably would be more efforts to pass gun control laws without these tactics, but I still believe less extreme lobbying tactics would easily defeat any proposed gun law. I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point, but as a gun owner and hunter, like you, I have no concern about the Dems getting into power and turning to gun laws. Even though Dems are more likely, by nature, being more urban, left-handled and all that, to be interested in more restrictive gun laws, politically, they've lost interest--magnified recently by the Heller v. D.C. victory. The war over gun laws is over. We won.

Perhaps local politicos will push for local regs in Chicago and New York, but nothing out West or nationally.

I agree that, in part, Dems have are scared of the "attack dog" tactics, and I said, sad as it is, in my column that it works. More important now, I believe, Dems realize that a large percentage of their own, long-time constituency owns guns, hunts, and even more so in that Great Undecided they covet, so this is really not a good issue for them. Besides, they have plenty to do, to say the least, and gun laws aren't even in the top 50 on their priority list.

The next four years will tell us. If I'm wrong, I'll fess up to it right here on the Internet. And even use my real name.

Bill

Yeah, Bill. You can wax nostalgic about when you used to have guns.

When the next Congress gets back in session, you can believe that Chuckles Schumer will revive "Brady II" including the arsenal license for anyone who purchases more than 100 rounds of ammo a year. You can bet as well that Carolyn McCarthy will revive her "assault weapons" ban that includes any firearm of a style or caliber EVER procured by a governmental agency.

Will your buddy Obama veto those bills when them come to his desk? Doubt it.

Kiss your guns good bye.

OK, I usually stay out of the comment business, but I gotta chime in here:

The First Amendment restricts the state. The government can't censor you. In this case, the community of consumers this man's company served were angry, and made their opinions known. All concerned exercised their First Amendment rights without interference. The First Amendment does NOT protect you against other people taking exception to what you say. It is certainly unwise for a businessman to say things that will turn his customers against the company. Hence the resignation. It's a business decision, not censorship.

"Gun lobby attack dogs" is just useless hyperbole. The people who acted here were concerned individuals who share a common viewpoint. 80 million gun owners live in this country; unless you consider that whole body of persons to constitute a "lobby," you're just throwing out wacky conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

Overheated us-and-them rhetoric is not productive. I suppose this comment isn't either, but since I already wrote it, here it is.

Hey, is this thing setting a record for comments yet?

And by the way, I heard through the grapevine that former turncoat Ruger, as in: The late, mostly-great Bill Ruger said he would not produce magazines over ten shots, has an interesting special offer good from today until January 20:
Buy Ruger TWENTY-rounders for a deal price for your Mini.

Patriots are arming themselves to defend against wogs. There is no way even reactionaries are still stupid enough to believe they are protecting against the central government's standing army...

Cooper used his 1st Amendment Rights.

So did we.

Nice smear job, though.

Too bad you left out all the facts.

Too bad people do not care more about equality, feeding the hungry, fighting racism, equal education, things that really matter, as much as they care about their gun rights.

Check it out....Bill

Sportsman’s Warehouse CEO Speaks Out on Cooper Firearms Controversy
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/sportsmans_warehouse_ceo_speaks_out_on_cooper_firearms_controversy/C41/L41/

i believe that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct as much as any NRA sticker wearing gun owner, but i allow people to have their opinions about politics without going off the deep end. this is clearly a case of hysterical behavior by people who should have more important things to do than try to force legitimate business owners to have the same exact political opinions that they do. that smacks of nazism to me. i do business with people who have opinions that differ from me because they provide a good product at a good price. period. politics should not enter into business.

any other way would be totalitarianism- no better than dicatorship and the NRA and it's members look like thugs and unamerican nazi's for this unconscionable attack on a man who dares to differ with their politics. it is reprehensible behavior and extremely undemocratic and unamerican behavior and every one of you should be ashamed of acting like this.

our fathers fought a war to protect us from this type of extremism and i doubt if very many of them would approve of this childish trampling of one man's rights to his own pursuit of happiness and to his own political opinions. knock it off and grow up. how would you like to be persecuted for your beliefs???

Jenny,

Preserving gun rights is a cultural imperative. All those other things you talk about are secondary to the 2nd Amendment.

Problembear,

Cooper Firearms will go away. It's a matter of time. It must happen, it will happen.

so spake the almighty pete.

i think cooper arms is a good product for a good price. grow up pete and act like an adult. everybody is entitled to his/her opinion in america no matter how much you may not like our american traditions.

you control your gun and i'll control mine.

you buy guns from whoever you choose and i will buy guns from anyone i choose and we'll see what happens. i think if you build a good mouse trap it shouldn't matter what your personal politics is.
but that's just me being reasonable.

Problembear:

> childish trampling of one man's rights

How were Mr. Cooper's rights trampled? Nobody tried to shut him up. No force of any kind was involved.

The right to speak freely is not the right to have everyone agree with you, or the right to expect those who disagree with you to stay silent.

> how would you like to be persecuted for your beliefs???

{boggle}

Gun owners and firearms rights activists _are_ persecuted for their beliefs every day in the popular media and by the government. Have you been paying attention to the behavior of the BATFE w/r/t honest gun dealers over the past fifteen years? Have you been paying attention to the increasing demonization of gun owners, gun dealers, and guns in general in the popular press over the last few decades?

A huge population of gun owners - those who own semiautomatic pistols and rifles - are now looking at experiencing a level of persecution many will not stand for.

Saying "we choose not to do business with you as long as you support those who would harm us, and will urge others to do the same" is _not_ persecution. You seriously need a reality check.

Jenny:

Tell me why the people of this country must be disarmed in order to achieve those laudable goals. They are not mutually exclusive with firearms rights - unless, perhaps, you believe that it is proper for the government to _ensure_ equality by taking (ultimately by force) from those who have more than you feel they should have to provide to those who have less?

Bill,
Take a reality pill.

There was no "gun lobby". Did you think each of those comments were posted by professional lobbiests?

Can your really praise Schoncke AHSA with a straight face? Everyone else on the planet knows AHSA is merely a front group to dupe the easily fooled media such as yourself.

You think those were hateful comments? I guess you being an "internet earrning" person is unable to find and peruse the Daily Kos or Huntington post or Moveon.org

What I see is free citizens, exercising there right to speak...as well as their right to buy what and where they want.

How about denouncing MSM for damning and putting up the nonsense about Sarah Palin's ethics probe? She was exonerated yesterday in what was a case based the mere allegation of smoke only, no mirrors even. But, I guess that didn't fit your personal agenda.

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

Yes Elfman, I support Mr. Duke's right exercise his free speech and make a total asshat of himself.

We here are offering you the same courtesy.

Dear Freedom4all: What exactly anti-Semitic did I say? Schumer is Jewish, liberal, from NYC, vehemently anti-gun. I have read many stories, comments and letters to the editor that describe Sarah Palin as a wacked out right wing Christian. Is there a freedom4all speech issue that you are not up to speed on?

I have seen people called muslims, who practice Islam as their religion, mentioned in the media all the time. Is that anti-Islamic?

I don't know if there is another Conservative Jew in the Congress other than Senator Lieberman, and his saturday worship was considered a liability in a national election. That is a devotion and time deal, and a question of availability 24/7/365. It is not about anti-Semitism. Romney is a Mormon, and that is most likely why he is not the candidate on the Republican ticket. Again, the liberal mainstream media was not comfortable with someone of that faith, and his being a Republican, and the media tainted him just enough. And they really beat up on poor Sarah. First, she just did not have a degree, or several, from a prestigious university. Then it was she was only a mayor and a governor and not experienced. Obama and Biden have NO, ZERO, executive administrative experience. Pontificating to an empty Senate on mundane political points evidently puts you right up there with Former Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Geriatric Robert "KKK" Byrd, who has endorsed Obama (that shows up on Google now). Lawdy, lawdy. How the world can change. Senator Teflon. And all that speechifying before the austere body called the Senate evidently qualifies you to lead a nation. Those guys don't make a single decision without advice from staff, or at least that is what Obama's people would want for Senator Biden.

So, Mr. Freedom4all, I just threw out the Schumer deal as a return in the volley over Palin and her religious beliefs. If you (and by "you", I am saying like thinkers, and not you if it does not apply) are wont to call her names over her personal beliefs, which are right out there for you to see, and her "right to life" walk-the-walk, which she has done, you have to know mud slinging and name calling is a two way street, no holds barred, and if you is what you is, you should either be proud of it, or slink away and beat yourself up out of purview of the public. Schumer is a NYC city egocentric small potatoes guy who became a big shot, and won't let you forget it. He is the chairman of the
Democrat committee to elect Democrats to the Senate. He had a huge warchest, and it has not been enjoyable to watch tv this fall with all kinds of real mud slinging attack ads (gee--left wing liberal Senate attack dogs?) besmirching the most moderate Republican in the Senate, all in a probably successful attempt to replace him with a Democrat Brown Shirt party hack who will never, ever (he was a state legislator and has a record) not vote the party line. He is not for Oregon, but for Democrats. And if enough people vote for him, the rest will have no representation in Congress. Then who is the minority? Who is no enfranchised?

Our country is truly representative of the computer age. We are binary. Left or right. No middle ground in a computer circuit or American politics at this time. And if you attempt to find middle ground, you will be ground, like in ground beef, by either party. Almost does sound like a fight to the death out there. Perhaps it is because we exported so many jobs, and it is so competitive to get into college, get a good job, that only the radical, the strident, the zealots, will get there. And who they have to run over, through or around to get there mean nothing. The prize is the goal, the be-all and end-all. I have watched union school teachers eat their young every time there is a reduction in taxes and government revenue. LIFO. Last in, first out. No crying. So Chuckie is just what Schneider believes people who don't follow Obama's gun issue ideas are: attack dogs. Only Chuckie is an attack dog of the left. And a gun controller. He is quite capable of name calling. And is strong enough to know who he is.

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.

end quote.

MMM. Close. What he wants to get his mitts on is every aspect of your life, any funds you have over baseline, your sprit and your incentive to be a creative free individual.

i support the 2nd amendment and will protect it by expressing my opinion to my representatives- not by targeting a man's business because he does not believe as i do. it's called being responsible as a citizen who respects each citizen's right to their opinion.

i choose to not be associated with hysterical gun nazi's and you know what? i'll bet the representatives who protect those rights for us are much more inclined to listen to my opinion than some gun nut who does not respect other's rights to their pursuit of happiness. in fact i know they do, because they listen to me and my friends. it is called being reasonable and tolerant. you should try it sometime instead of consuming yourselves with fear, hatred and intolerance of others who might not agree with you.

By Elfman, 11-03-08

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.

We would like to but, we will be too busy reloading.

For all of you spearing me over the words, "gun lobby," I agree. Bad choice of words...although lobbying is not something restricted to professionals. Everytime you email your local politician or try to influence his/her vote in anyway, I suppose it could be called "lobbying.".....Bill

By Elfman, 11-03-08

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.

For the same reason people like you used to say "Richard Millhouse Nixon".

Problembear,

Cooper used his influential position in the gun industry to undermine the second amendment; this was his right of free speech.

Since he used his position to sway opinion he his reaping his rewards. He set himself up for failure and received it.

As you know I speak out against radical environmentalism as a consequence the Greater Yellowstone Coalition has blackmailed advertisers on my website.

That is my consequence for speaking out and using my first amendment.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition blackmailing my advertisers is something that you could probably go along with though.

Bearbait:

Mentioning that someone is Jewish when it's not germane to the topic is considered an attempt to be prejudicial. Is Schumer's faith driving his actions? Does Judaism led him to support the Fairness Doctrine [spit]? Is it related in any way to the point you were trying to make? If not, then it's an irrelevancy and your inclusion of it weakens your position because it reeks of antisemitism - "condemn his actions because he's a Jew!!"

Unfortunately your starting point of comments condemning Sarah Palin due to her religion was not at all apparent. Making that clear might have helped your original post.

To try to drag it into some vague relevance to the topic at hand I'll say this: I personally am amazed and shocked that _any_ Jew can be against individual firearms rights after the Holocaust. Has Sen. Schumer (and others like him) learned _nothing_ from the tragic events in Europe during and just prior to WWII? "Never Again," except let's go ahead and disarm everyone again so that those are just nice sounding but ultimately empty words?

Have at it.

> I have seen people called muslims, who practice Islam as
> their religion, mentioned in the media all the time. Is that
> anti-Islamic?

It is if their faith is highlighted when it's not relevant to the topic being discussed.

> Our country is truly representative of the computer age. We
> are binary. Left or right. No middle ground in a computer
> circuit or American politics at this time.

Heh. Nice. Thanks for sharing that.

Maybe tomorrow, if the anointed one wins as predicted, those of us who cannot find the dough in the kitty to buy a Cooper quality shooter will be able to get one sort of indirectly from Obama. You know, his view of the Supreme Court not supporting taking from those who have to give to those who have not. Maybe the redistribution of wealth from a filibuster proof Senate, a larger House majority, and a one party government, will send enough my way so I, too, can buy a Cooper or two. The clouds will part, and the sun will shine, and Santa will bring the old man a Cooper.

The old hook tender told me I could wish into one hand, and poop in the other, and it was up to me to figure which hand would fill up first. No Cooper. And something for the composter.

By Freedom4All, 11-04-08

Thanks Bill, for bringing attention to the zero tolerance policy of the gun lobby and its extremist right wing base. I'm reminded of the people who have chanted "KILL HIM" at recent Sarah Palin rallies.

Yah. Another libtard urban myth- since exposed. The Secret Service investigated and no one else but the reporter heard it. Perhaps he didn't realize he was talking to himself?....made an awfully good story though didn't it?

Bill:

> For all of you spearing me over the words, "gun lobby," I agree.
> Bad choice of words...

Thank you for that, Bill.

> although lobbying is not something restricted to professionals.

Agreed; however, whenever anyone says "the {x} Lobby" the immediate and inescapable interpretation is _professional_, _paid_ lobbyists, not individuals expressing their own opinions; the negative connotations associated with that term will unavoidably color the rest of the discussion.

Of course, some people intentionally use "the {x} Lobby" to specifically arouse those negative connotations...

Bearturd, I see from your posts that you scratched your head before figuring out which hand held what!

Jed, have at it. Where have you been? But keep in mind that you'll have to explain "wog" to these types.

Problembear, good arguments but your wasting your time.

I get the impression this Kralj character is a 12 year old kid in his mom's basement.

I scratched my Kraljs. Where is the blue ointment when you need it.

The good wife and I are off to the local art movie theater to see that election night thriller, "Dr. Strangelove." I get to see Peter Sellers once again, and George C Scott...Col. Bat Guano?...and Slim Pickens is his second best role (Rancho Deluxe is still my favorite). The morning paper, what is left of it, will have a headline and a winner. And have the State and local stuff. See how much my taxes are going up as my income decreases. Redistribute that money, Obammer!!! (that is the Mass. Obama). ta ta....have a nice night, you all...

just in - state of ohio is obama's. you guys are all irrelevant now.
now it is up to reasonable people to save the 2nd amendment. nobody is going to listen to a bunch of hysterical gun nazi's now. so rail and flail away. it's all over now but the shoutin'. off to celebrate the death of the corrupt elephant. fear and hate do not work anymore and it is time for you all to grow up and act like men and recognize a fellow citizen's right to his opinion and his livelihood. good night.

Nah, gwalch, I just find you guys very, very funny. And not NEAR as scary as you envision yourselves to be. Oh, and kind of pathetic too. But yeah, you're right. I do have a juvenile sense of humor. And what's wrong with that? I still laugh at fart jokes and you!

Yep, Larry, I agree. It's good to lighten up, and in your case, I vote you the Commenter of This Thread, for this bit of Wisdom..."The First Rule of Gun Safety is to Not Shoot Your Mouth Off." Thanks, to all of you, for your comments and engagement in such an important issue.....Bill

GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT... NAY, THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IN ALL ITS GREATNESS!!

Well kiddos, better plan to drill holes in the receivers of everything but your .22s and your .410s. Google Illinois SB1195 to get a taste of what you'll have to live with this time next year!

Hold your horses, Elfman. President Elect Obama. Let the gloating begin. oh...it already started. sorry

Don't let the door hit you in the azz on the way out, Dan!

Except for the portion the government seizes, my money is mine to spend as I see fit. Why I would purchase a firearm from a man who helped elect a president who said, "I don't believe people should be allowed to own firearms." is beyond me.

These are the Dan Cooper and Barack Obama I know.

If you really feel that the President of the United States has nothing better to do (and all the time in the world) than to create jobs to collect guns or to write reams of tax code about your guns then by all means hold on tightly to your firearms for the next four years. I will spend the next four years watching our new President deal with the issues of our economy, the war in the middle east, our education problems, the foreclosure problems, and all of the other domestic and international troubles that we currently face as a nation.

What puzzles me is how many "right to lifers" are also gun enthusiasts. They love to wrap themselves in the Second Amendment, which is hopelessly outdated, while opposing a woman's right to an abortion. Hypocrisy and NRA bluster can't obscure the real fact so many men love guns. Dr. Freud, why don't you take this one?

Somehow I'm managing to live a productive life without firearms. I don't buy into the fantasy that some bogey man will creep into my house at night, allowing me to go all Steven Seagal on his ass with my bitchin' Glock nine.

I guess that fantasy gives them something to think about while they masturbate...I mean, clean their weapon.

Exceptional article. Living in Stevensville Mt, I feel I have a slightly different view on this Dan Cooper assault. I should also note that I have a son who was employed by Cooper Firearms. My son is almost 18 years old and reading the hate filled letters and comments posted about a boss who was never anything but wonderful to my son makes me wonder as to the lesson he is learning as he nears the age that he himself is able to vote. Do I want my son believing that to voice his opinion can cause him to loose his lively-hood? What message is that sending? I believe in a world where every person has the right, the right that many people fought and died for, to have his own beliefs. I believe a person has the right to voice those beliefs in a civil manner. The attacks that I have seen take place over the past few days are mean spirited, over the top, and appalling. It is no wonder that they are done anonymously. Dan Cooper has spent much of his life pursuing a passion of his. He gives back to the community he lives in with both his time and his money. He is willing to mentor children, to teach them a love of guns and shooting that he himself shares. It boggles the mind that the zealots say "crush him", "drive him out", and worse. I thought this was a democracy. I am proud of Dan Cooper for voicing his opinion. I am ashamed of the outcome, and I fear for the lesson this is teaching one almost 18 year old. I will stand up and make my opinion known to the stores that have decided not to carry Cooper Firearms. I will voice my opinion, perhaps not as viciously as the far righters have, but I will voice it. This is deeply troubling to me, and I think a stand must be taken.

Bob Wire,
Freud would say again as he once famously did, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

In an effort to support free speech, I visited Cooper's Web site, and became interested in their heavy-barreled varmint rifles (sorta interested in a 6.5-.308 caliber). Sadly, some of the more interesting models don't support magazine feeds.

It's one thing to voice your displeasure over someone's politically oriented opinions, and quite another to engage in an organized campaign to ruin his business.

It's remarkable that a simple statement of support for a candidate whose current stance on gun ownership is relatively tame would result in this kind of overreaction from many gun owners (of which I am one), but then, on a leading gun blog, I've also seen Obama painted with racial smears ("coon"), erroneously labeled a muslim ("a sworn enemy of our country" and all the usual commie/pinko associations -- apparently with the support of the nationally known magazine and writer running the thing.

In that context, it's hardly a surprise that non gun owners think we're all whack jobs.

In the meantime, I'd like to have a few places left to hunt, and a few decent populations of elk and mulies around, and if Cooper wants to support a candidate who might help make that a reality, then you'd think hunters would respect that choice.

The landslide victory of president-elect Barack Obama makes it perfectly clear how far out of the mainstream these right wingers who attacked Dan Cooper really are (if the comments about Jews and killing Liberals didn't do the trick already).

Organized campaign, TC?
Don't think so. Nobody orchestrated it...it was just a "didjaseethis" post on a thread and away it went.
One thing I don't recall here in our discussion is any mention of why the reactions to SandW, Ruger, Zumbo, Shoenke, and now Cooper are so, um, vociferous.
It is my humble and considered opinion that many gun owners recognize a couple truths.
Truth One. Firearms owners are an absolute minority in this country, as are, for that matter, hook-and-bulleteers.
Truth Two. Rights exercised by a minority are always potentially subject to abridgement by "the majority." The likelihood of abridgement is directly tied to the perceived size and solidarity of that minority.

Skinner: The tyranny of the urban majority. The new rural experience. The McMansion in the middle of the elk meadow. Anti natural resource use money and NGO meddling in all aspects of rural life. The transference of the idea that since your metropolitan gang bangers have Uzi's, a varmint hunter in Malta should not be able to own an AR-15 is the mindset. So, as scary as the reaction to a gun maker endorsing a gun taker, followed by the vitriol of those who feel threatened by any gun taker, you have to know that even more scary is when nobody says a thing. That is when we all see the inside of the rhetorical oven.

Good Lord, some of you gun goofs need to be on anti paranoid medication. Nobody is coming to take your guns away unless you're beating your wife with your gun or you threaten to kill an excessive number of people.

A question for all of you who reassure us that nobody is going to "come to take our guns away": would you consider a federal law banning a class of firearms that I and thousands of others already own to be someone "coming to take our guns away"? Or do they actually have to come knocking on our doors?

Bearbait: Let me get this straight. When a democrat says "God Bless the President and the Constitution" it is "gloating" and when a Republican says the same thing it is "patriotic"?! Wake up dude. There are alot of us who love guns, freedom, country and God who also love Barack Obama. If you want to call it gloating, fine. I still say God Bless America and President Obama!!

It might good if you try to stand behind him too. After all, he is going to be YOUR president too.

Pete - you are paranoid. Nobody is coming for your guns. Even if they do it cracks me up to think that you think you and the "militia" would be able to stand up to the force of the US Military and/or National Guard. You would be vaporized before you have the chance to reach for your weapon.

Cooper made a choice & now he pays the price.

The author's continued support for the AHSA's duplicitous assertion that it is a pro gun organisation ensures ANY of his articles referencing firearms are seen for what they are by those who really DO believe in the Right to keep & bear arms.

Stop LYING to people Mr Schneider

Maybe your fans are ignorant about matters pertaining to firearms but you will never fool those of us who know the truth.

Elfman:

> it cracks me up to think that you think you and the "militia"
> would be able to stand up to the force of the US Military
> and/or National Guard.

Bear in mind that gun owners in this nation outnumber the active duty military by something north of 3:1. And you're assuming the military even obeys orders to disarm the citizenry by force.

If you're willing to do a little reading, I direct your attention to this essay:

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-handgun-against-army-ten.html

Oh elfman!

Would you care to explain why it is OK for YOU to use Barak Hussein Obama's full name, yet it is duplicitous for others to do so:

" By Elfman, 11-03-08
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."

"By elfman, 11-03-08
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."

I take it only True Believers in The One are allowed to use his full name without criticism........

Gun Rights in Peril
Barack Obama in the White House; many pro-gunners out of Congress

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Based on his voting record in the Illinois state senate and in the
U.S. Senate, President-elect Barack Obama will be the most
anti-Second Amendment president in the history of America.

In January, the new President will govern alongside congressional
leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, who are also extremely hostile to gun rights and who now
enjoy greatly expanded majorities.

There can be little doubt about the direction in which gun rights are
headed. The questions are how far will the anti-gunners go and how
fast will they move?

Many comparisons have been made to the first two years of the first
Clinton Administration, in which one party controlled both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue.

Almost all experts agree that it was Clinton's overreaching on issues
like gun control that cost his party control of Congress. Barack
Obama will start out governing with even larger majorities than did
Clinton.

Obama ran a campaign high on rhetoric and short on specifics. The
President-elect claims he will govern from the middle, but the
question for gun owners is which Obama will show up at the White
House -- the "centrist" from the campaign trail, or the radical
anti-Second Amendment extremist who supports gun bans, waiting
periods for firearm purchases, one gun a month restrictions, and
more?

His party's large gains in the Congress give the incoming President
more room to maneuver with a radical agenda.

An equally important question is the outlook for gun rights in the
new Congress. That Obama will sign any anti-gun bill that gets to
his desk is a certainty. But what can gun owners expect from the new
Congress?

Hopes of Congressional restraint on gun issues dimmed with each
election return as Pelosi's and Reid's majorities grew to historic
proportions.

While there are many moderately pro-gun Democrats in Congress,
they're not the ones calling the shots. The leadership is completely
in the anti-gun camp, so expanding their majority would have a
negative impact on gun rights regardless of who filled those seats.

Unfortunately, though, many seats that flipped parties also went from
strong pro-gun to strong anti-gun. Gun owners suffered heavy losses
in the Senate. Here's a look at five Senate seats that switched
parties (all switches went from Republican to Democrat).

Colorado -- The retirement of A-rated Senator Wayne Allard set up a
battle between anti-gun Rep. Mark Udall and pro-gun former Rep. Bob
Schaffer. This is one of three senate seats that flipped from
"A" to
"F."

New Hampshire -- Pro-gun Senator John Sununu was defeated by F-rated
former governor Jeanne Shaheen, another "A" to "F" shift.

New Mexico -- Long-time Senator Pete Domenici, who was D-rated and
usually voted against gun owners, was replaced by F-rated Congressman
Tom Udall. Udall defeated A-rated Representative Steve Pearce,
making this a big loss for gun owners.

North Carolina -- Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole ran as a pro-gun
control candidate for president in 2000. Since being elected to the
Senate from the Tar Heel state, however, Mrs. Dole compiled a good
pro-gun record. Dole's defeat at the hands of F-rated anti-gunner
Kay Hagan is a dramatic flip for gun rights.

Virginia -- F-rated Republican John Warner retired. Former governor
Mark Warner (no relation) trounced "A" rated Jim Gilmore, also a
former governor. Either of the candidates would have been an
improvement over the retiring Senator, but Mark Warner refused to
answer the GOA survey and has a mixed record on gun issues.

In the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives, gun owners also
were hit hard.

Of the 18 incumbents who were defeated, 15 were pro-gun (only two
were replaced by a pro-gunner). Of particular disappointment to gun
owners were the losses of Republican representatives Marilyn Musgrave
(CO-4), Tom Feeney (FL-24), Bill Sali (ID-1), and Tim Walberg (MI-7).
These representatives were among the most ardent Second Amendment
supporters.

In the 32 open House seats, the results were mixed. Thirteen seats
went to A-rated candidates, while six went to F-rated anti-gunners.
Nine new congressmen are "Not Rated," meaning they have no
record and
refused to fill out a GOA questionnaire. Four new members fall
somewhere in the middle, leaning toward a pro-gun position but no
guarantees. Note: a handful of close races across the country are
obviously headed for recounts, but this is how things look at the
moment.

The A-rated winners in open seat elections are: Tom McClintock (R-CA)
(this race is still subject to change), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bill
Posey (R-FL), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Aaron
Schock (R-IL), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Blaine
Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Christopher Lee (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA),
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). These
representatives will have their work cut out for them, as the new
Congress has moved decidedly in the anti-gun direction and many
pro-gun leaders were defeated.

All in all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can’t help but be emboldened
by their gains and there can be no denying that gun control
legislation is on their agenda.

So what can gun owners and sportsmen do to help prevent a gun control
tidal wave? Get involved and stay engaged!

Gun Owners of America will continue its efforts as Capitol Hill's
no-compromise gun lobby. But GOA's effectiveness depends on your
activism. Please continue to send the e-mails to your congressmen,
and forward GOA Action Alerts to pro-gun friends.

If you are not a member of Gun Owners of America, please join today
at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm so that you can start
receiving our newsletters and other important gun rights information.

The entire Congress needs to know that we're watching, and if they
attempt to ban even one firearm or expand unconstitutional gun
control in any way they will pay at the polls in the next election.


****************************

Are You A Bitter Clinger?

Who is a Bitter Clinger? According to Barack Obama, who was
recorded unawares at a San Francisco fundraiser, bitter clingers are
voters who are bitter because of their economic frustration and so
cling
bitterly to their Bibles and their guns.

If you are a bitter clinger, Gun Owners of America has a T-shirt for
you!

You can proudly proclaim your membership in this class of people so
looked down upon by the elites in our country.

To see the Bitter Clinger T-shirt, and for ordering information, go
to:

http://www.gunowners.org/merch9066.htm

I see the "Liberal" scum are still lying. No surprise there. They'll still be lying after hell thaws out again. If they couldn't lie they wouldn't need oxygen.

I suggest you all stop wasting time arguing with creatures that will not change until they stop breathing and start working on how we're going to kill enough of them to get our Liberty and our country back. Or get ready to kiss anything they stick in your face.

Don't understand? Read the above post from Gun Owners of America, the only gun rights groups really worth joining. And I'll re-refer the non-"Liberal" freaks who are sincere in their efforts to understand the world we live in to my quotes page. Links above.

The only power we have now is our refusal.

Rent and watch the movie 'Michael Collins' for what our future probably holds in store....

Hardin: I am a gun owner and I am part of that 3:1 ratio. I am not worried about anyone coming to take my guns. Enough said. Talk to me in 4 years (or perhaps even 8). Let's see where we are then.

Waypasthadenough: You are a sick man to condone the murder of millions of your fellow Americans. I hope Mr. Schneider will pass your real name along to law enforcement officials so they can track your terrorist activities. You are clearly issuing a call to action to murder any liberals in your path. In doing that you can be proud to call yourself a terrorist. So much for freedom.

Bill O'Rites: Nice try at a "gotcha" post but that doesn't fly. In my first post I made the legitimate complaint that some people out there have attempted to associate Barack with the deceased dictator of Iraq by using his full name which, by coincidence, is Hussein. My second post I simply obliged all those who wish to imply that we would be electing a terrorist simply because of his name. There is nothing wrong at all with using Barack's middle name unless the intention with which it is spoken/written is to discredit him simply because he has a middle name in common with a dead president of Iraq.

So, I am proud to say that I voted for Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States. I am even more proud that the great majority of Americans were willing to look past these childish attempts to discredit someone based upon the organization of letters in his middle name and elect OUR new President... Barack Hussein Obama. What a great message to the world we have just sent!

If you wish to continue calling him Hussein then that is your right and, in fact, I would encourage you to do so now that the election is over. Maybe after 4 years of using the name Hussein in reference to your president you will lose some of your prejudice.

elfman writes:

"Waypasthadenough: You are a sick man to condone the murder of millions of your fellow Americans. I hope Mr. Schneider will pass your real name along to law enforcement officials so they can track your terrorist activities. You are clearly issuing a call to action to murder any liberals in your path. In doing that you can be proud to call yourself a terrorist. So much for freedom."

See what I mean? They never stop lying or angling. This creature either can't read, think for itself, or follow a simple line of logic or is just, well, lying. All it had to do was read my more carefully read my earlier posts to answer all its questions.

Hope I get to see it during "Liberal" season.

I've been doing this for 15 years. I have not doubt the Fed Nazis are familiar with my name and location. Learn to think and act for yourselves people, and ignore the "Liberal" scum, and stop tolerating the creatures. That's the only hope we have now.

And isn't it funny how the same "Liberal" freaks who claimed for years that the U.S. Military couldn't 'win' in Iraq now claim that a nation of 300 million people can't take back their Liberty?

That's how they lie folks. Learn to recognize how they keep you confused.

waypast: You wrote:

"I suggest you all stop wasting time arguing with creatures that will not change until they stop breathing and start working on how we're going to kill enough of them to get our Liberty and our country back."

Why would you think, with a statement such as you have written above, that I or anyone else would have an interest in going back and reading whatever other ridiculous posts you may have made here? I do not have any questions that need to be answered by you. Not only do you fail to offer your fellow human beings the respect and common decency of being referred to as such (instead we are "creatures" and an "it") but you also encourage the murder of fellow Americans who have different viewpoints than you. I would love to hear your try to reconcile that notion with the Constitution. Actually, I really couldn't care less to hear what you have to say on the subject anymore.

You will gain no liberty through murder. If you cannot understand that then you cannot be communicated with. Your soul must be rotting with hatred. I feel sorry for you.

By the way, I still maintain that the US Military cannot "win" in Iraq. A "win" can only be defined as a situation wherein Iraq functions on its own as a democracy serving as a beacon for freedom in the middle east. As much as I would love to see that happen I do not believe it will.

300 million do not need to take something back they already have... at least until you take it from them by murdering them.

Elfman

Your riposte is disingenuous: You cannot read the mind of the original poster & thus have no grounds to intimate anything from his use of Obama's given name......

.....though doing so DOES indeed indicate YOUR bias.

As for this:

"By the way, I still maintain that the US Military cannot "win" in Iraq. A "win" can only be defined as a situation wherein Iraq functions on its own as a democracy serving as a beacon for freedom in the middle east. As much as I would love to see that happen I do not believe it will."

You are probably correct on this assessment, as Obama has vowed to pull out US troops no matter what the consequences & they WILL be dire ones.
Less people are dying from violence in Iraq today than at any time since 1979 when Saddam Hussein took power (between 15,000 & 250,000 a year from 1979 - 2003) but this will change when the stabilising influence of US (& other) troops is removed.

The blood will be on Obama's hands for all to see.......

Anyway; back to the original subject.

The writer of this piece is a blatant anti gun person, as evinced by this & many other articles he has written, so his opinion carries NO merit whatsoever - except to confirm that those who decried Cooper's actions were correct in doing so.
His attempts to make Cooper's "outing" into some kind of conspiracy are disproved by the very diversity of those who have protested.
I for one, am a British citizen & resident in the UK. I am however concerned that the US does not follow the UK down the same road to elective totalitarianism which inevitably follows tha disarming of a nations citizens.
Obama & his handlers are Socialists & as such, WILL attempt to control every sector of peoples' lives.
Mark my words: You will come to rue the day you voted for "change".....

.....read this if you don't believe me:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

One word;

Incorporation.


Fight for it and win. I don't care if you're a member of the NRA ASHA JPFOA GOA or BSA. It is what's next.

Bill O'Rites: Oh yes, you are so right... I am sure a guy who comes in here mouthing off about the evil spirited intentions of Barack Obama to take away our Constitutional Rights utters our new president's middle name with the utmost respect and pride. I am SURE he had no intention of attempting to associate Barack with the deceased dictator of Iraq. My bad. That same poster also said that gun rights advocates should focus on how to kill more of us "creatures". Would you like to tell me what I should glean from that? Is he really saying "Peace be with you"?

Also, the Iraq war was lost before it even began. Again, my standard of a "win" would be democracy in Iraq. I think this is the same standard that any logical person would have to apply to the situation. First we went in to protect ourselves from certain demise by Saddam's massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Turns out there are no WMDs and the intelligence was sloppy and even manufactured to a certain extent. Failure. Then, the mission became all about "humanitarianism" and delivering a repressed society from evil so they may enjoy freedom. So, we killed the dictator and have now engaged in an attempt at "nation building" - something Bush talked so negatively of way back before all this began. Turns out the culture of the Middle East does not embrace freedom and democracy the way Bush, in his great ignorance, thought. The blood is and will be on his hands, not Barack's. The US cannot afford this war anymore. We do not have the money.

You do realize, do you not, that both candidates spoke of bringing the troops home during the campaign? McCain talked of "bringing the troops home in victory rather than defeat" whereas Barack talks of the "wrongness" of a war he was against from the start. If you go to war for the wrong reasons then it is very difficult to bring the troops home victorious. That is the crux of the problem. To claim that he can "bring them home in victory" was just an empty, meaningless promise. I will always be proud of each and every member of the service who went over there to perform their duty but I will forever be ashamed of this country's decision, under the leadership of a village idiot, to send our beloved troops into harm's way due to a personal vendetta with manufactured intelligence. It is just plain perverted.

There are more issues on the table here than the Second Amendment, you know. Barack's has 4 very tough years ahead of him dealing with these other pressing issues. You can write back to me in 4 years and say "I told you so" if the USA becomes a socialist country. In the meantime, I am not going to worry about it. In fact, I might take my .45 outside this afternoon and do a little shooting.

FYI...Cabela's also denied canceling any Cooper Firearms orders. Check out the most recent posting....Bill

Cabela's and Cooper Firearms
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/cabelas_and_cooper_firearms/C41/L41/

I don't remember seeing any ads about President elect Obama taking the hunters weapons away from them. I, myself wonder why some of you numb nuts want an Uzi or a caliber .50 weapon to hunt with. Those are the firearms he Obama was refering to.

It sems leaping to conclusions is one of the better things done by the ignornat. Thanks for proving my point.

TheDirtyDemocrat:

> I don't remember seeing any ads about President elect Obama
> taking the hunters weapons away from them.

No, that won't happen right off the bat. They'll whittle down gun owners' numbers by confiscating all those eeevil black rifles first. But don't worry, they will eventually demonize your high-powered precision sniper rifle that shoots a bullet that can kill a cop through his body armor at a thousand yards, and come knocking on your door too.

Divide and conquer. Read up on it.

> I, myself wonder why some of you numb nuts want an Uzi or
> a caliber .50 weapon to hunt with. Those are the firearms he
> Obama was refering to.

So, in your opinion, hunting is the only valid reason to own a firearm? Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your position.

First they came for the machine guns, and I didn’t speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who needs a machine gun to hunt with?
Then they came for the “assault weapons,” and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700 and who needs an "assault weapon" to hunt with?
Then they came for the .50 caliber rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who wants to hunt with a .50 (apart from those black powder nuts)?
Then they came for the semiautomatic handguns, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who hunts with a semiautomatic handgun? (Though those big-bore hunting revolvers are kinda neat, in a sick way.)
Then they came for the rest of the semiautomatic rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who needs more than four shots for hunting?
Then they came for the sniper rifles, and even though my Remington 700 has a scope, and fires a round that will go through a car door, and I can hit the eye of an elk at 500 yards, and the Second Amendment says we can have guns for hunting, there was no one left to speak up for me (except for those black powder nuts).

Bill you need to post your amendment and apology with this on the mainpage of newwest not your personal site. save us some time and energy, we don't waste our time calling about contracts that are not cancelled.

free speech for everyone

western democrats: bringing the liberty back into liberal.

Obama! YES!!!!

FYI...Both the Cabela's and SW stories were posted on the front page, main page of the Travel & Outdoor section, and on all other pages on which the original article was posted. And yes, I should have made some calls to verify what Dan Cooper said about the canceled orders. He said the the orders had been canceled, and I took his word for it. I will be posting another article on this issue soon.....Bill

FYI--An important update....Bill

Dan Cooper Answers Questions about Canceled Orders
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/dan_cooper_answers_questons_about_canceled_orders/C41/L41/

First amendment rights protect us from the government.

Is it OK for a business owner to voice an opinion and spend his money accordingly, but not OK for his customers?

The smart thing for a business man to do is not offer an opinion.

I know one significant difference between AHSA and the NRA. AHSA's presidential candidate won by a landslide last Tuesday, the NRA's...not so much.

Wow!
It's scary, alright!
Don't these people realize how they're helping the anti-gun folks, who, if they read these people's comments, will conclude that all pro-gun people are totally nuts.
This kind of hateful response hurts us all.

I find it entertaining that this has gone on for days. The "Liberal" scum never run out of lies. But the second worst group, besides the fake 'gun owners and hunters' who have posted here, are the little pacified twerps who think we can 'compromise' with these evil creatures.

I had an epiphany last night, it went something like this: A "Liberal" is a creature that can stare you in the eye and tell you it loves you and wants to help you while planning to cut your throat and steal everything you have."

That pretty much sums it up.

And these lying freaks still haven't gone to my quotes page:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

why would you think anyone would care about seeing your quotes page?

Thank you for having the fortitude to write this article. It needed to be written. I'm an avid hunter, reloader, and target shooter of 44 years. You can count on 3 things in life: death, taxes, and the NRA going out of its way every 4 years to scare people into voting Republican, regardless of the Democratic candidate. I can't support that in good faith.

I will be proud to purchase Cooper products and intend to do so as a matter of principle. I also spend several thousand dollars with Cabelas each year. As a result of allowing themselves to be bent by political pressure, I intend to inform them that I will no longer be supporting their business. That way they will learn in the future that by involving themselves in this type of confrontation, they will lose either way.

Paul,
What political pressure are speaking of? Did one of the political parties apply pressure to on one of those business to operate in certain way? From this forum and a couple of others that I read (handloads.com, ar15.com) it has just been concerned citizens and consumers voicing their heartfelt opinions. I am avid shooter and Hand loader. I enjoy owning and shooting Handguns, Brown rifles, Black rifles and even black powder on occasion. Do very little shotgun shooting it's just not my thing, but I have a couple. I just wanted that in open before I state my next thought. I very seldom venture out onto this format to debate folks. Because as happened here in it turns in a name calling juvenile "mine is bigger than yours", type of event. From people on all sides of the issue. Like I said 200 posts ago it's a free country and I am free choose to spend my earned money however I decide. I am a Patron Member of the NRA and belong to GOA as well and all those groups are is tool for the little guy to have a voice on the Hill. How is the NRA different from PETA, ARCP, and VFW they are not, just a voice so that little guy has a lobbyist where it is needed. Bill, while I do not agree with what you authored this time I do respect your right to have a opinion that that is "incorrect" in my opinion. LOL To all out there with our various passions in different areas lets be civil. Take a non-shooter to the range.......conversion is our best weapon.

It is interesting when a conservative group speaks their opinion, uses their voices to speak out against political issues, end up becoming the target for doing so. Regardless of their economic or social standing all have a right to use their political strengths and their voices. By example Mr. Obama was elected by the very same methods, with huge financial backing. This is our system. Please don't criticize citizens for expressing their rights, using what political power they have and organizing to protect what they believe in as gun owners have done. In this political climate we have seen vitriolic speech from all political corners. I believe the democratic party, heavily influenced by both coasts, are now successfully influencing the way of thinking in the rest of the country. Good or bad, its just the way it is. The democratic party will attempt to restrict your firearm rights. Work against that if that is your opinion. But don't get upset when the rhetoric gets racheted up. Conservatives, liberals and moderates all engage in it.