More from USA Today on Dan Cooper

Here’s another article – not a blog post this time – about the effort to draw attention to Dan Cooper’s efforts working against gun owners by supporting Barack Obama. It not only mentions Peter again, but also quotes me.

Some gun websites had posted the company’s e-mail address and telephone number, encouraging gun owners to boycott the company and contact its top executives.”This needs to get around,” wrote a blogger who calls himself “Sebastian, a thirty something, self professed ‘gun nut’ living somewhere in Pennsylvania.” He added: “Gun owners need to know which companies sell their interests down the river. Here’s contact info for Cooper Firearms. I would talk to them, and be sure they know Obama’s record, why you’re not voting for him, and why you’ll never buy one of their products.”

I love that Bob Ricker calls me a whacko!

34 thoughts on “More from USA Today on Dan Cooper”

  1. The comments were quite entertaining; most of those people were a bunch of blithering idiots that didn’t have the slightest idea what they were talking about.
    Of course, no thread on firearms was complete without the guns=manhood argument from the anti-gun people. Does it strike anyone else as strange how hoplophobes seem to have a fascination for fantasizing about gun-owner’s genitalia?
    Just wondering…

  2. Dan Cooper has NOT been ousted as of this writing. He is still at Cooper Arms answering emails and phones if you cared to check. The board has asked him to resign. That’s a big difference. Just like there is a big difference between the hunting rifles made by Cooper Arms and any sort of weapon that is currently banned or had any bans proposed by either party at any time.

    The government restricts your ability to drive an armored tank on the road. Do you feel that restriction has in any way encroached on your right to drive a personnal car or truck?

  3. According to the first USAToday post, Dan has stood down.

    In other news, I find it interesting that the governor of Montana is weighing in on this. Something tells me his constituents might not entirely agree with him…

  4. Just like there is a big difference between the hunting rifles made by Cooper Arms and any sort of weapon that is currently banned or had any bans proposed by either party at any time.

    Oh? Perhaps you are not aware that Senator Ted “The Hero of Chappaquiddick” Kennedy loudly advocated the banning of rifles and ammunition of .30-30 caliber, because of that caliber’s ability to penetrate police body armor and car bodies. While Cooper doesn’t seem to offer any rifles chambered in .30-30, they offer some in much more powerful calibers.

  5. Also, Joe, a new armor-piercing ammunition ban (that Senator Barack Hussein Obama supported) could stand to ban any round that can penetrate any armor. Given that Type I body armor is only designed to stop .22 rounds, if even that, you do the math on how that would affect any/all of the firearms Cooper makes.

    As for your analogy, it is inherently and absolutely flawed. Previous (and current, see Kalifornistan) assault weapon bans regulted firearms on purely aesthetic features, not operational ones. Barrel shrouds, pistol grips, and all the rest of that nonsensical dren were the bases of those bans… but, the problem is, the firearms underneath all of those accessories were exactly the same as any other firearm on the market before, during, or after the bans.

    A more accurate analogy would be the government restricting my ability to drive a multi-hued, big-assed-exhaust, body-kitted, big-honkin’-spoilered, vented, underlit, decal-laden ricermobile. Would I feel that restriction had, in any way, encroached on my right to drive a personal car or truck? You’re damned skippy I would.

  6. BobG says:
    Of course, no thread on firearms was complete without the guns=manhood argument from the anti-gun people.

    Of course … it’s pretty much obligatory. But I can prove all of them wrong. For all the guns that I own, I have a remarkably huge penis.


    Anti-gun females … get in line.

  7. They do not restrict your ability to own that tank, however. That is the key difference.
    With the remainder of your comments in mind, Joe, I am going to exercise my free market rights and not shop there. Nobody here has called for his imprisonment, silencing, or torture. He has a right to vote and send donations to whomever he wishes. I have a right to disagree and I am going to. With my dollar.

  8. Don’t forget that Obama, as a Joyce Foundation board member, provided funds to the Violence Policy Center to call for bans on bolt-action rifles and scopes along w/ ammo bans.

  9. The last time I checked, this is still the United States of America, where a person’s right to free speech and right to vote is a constitutional guarantee! Where do the Board of Directors of Cooper Firearms get off asking the founder, president, and half owner of the company, bearing his name, to step down as the president of his own company? Are they afraid does support of Obama will affect the bottom line of the balance sheet? That’s positively ridiculous.

    If your product is good… it will sell itself… regardless of one’s politics and/or points of view! It seems to me that this is basically a case of greed! Pure and simple!

    By the way, I’m not a gunowner, but I fully support and believe in a person’s right to bear arms!

  10. That;s right, he can say and support anybody he wants. Notice, the board didn’t tell him he couldn’t support the one, they only said that his support was affecting the viability of the company and he should step down in the interest of the company.

    And in point of fact they already had proof that his dumbness(?) stupidity(?) would hurt the balance sheet.

  11. Joe, you blithering idiot, driving is a privilege; NOT a friggin’ Right.

    John Paul Mays, to us gun-, freedom- and America-loving people, buying guns from companies that support us and won’t betray us is an honor. Those that dishonor us will NOT get our money. You, being a self-professed non-owner of guns wouldn’t know anything about that. If you did, you’d realize how stupid your statement was. And yes, they would stand to lose a lot of business when gun owners and collectors stopped buying their products, if Dan Cooper remained President of the company that sold us all out. One more thing – gun owners have a very long term memory – much like that of the Elephant, the symbol of the majority of us gun owners.

  12. I am going to purchase a Cooper rifle to show my support for Dan Cooper. Go Obama!!

  13. it is unfortunate that Mr. Cooper has to resign because his political views ran contrary to others. It is sad that expressing your opinion or supporting a candidate in this country has become an “endangered species”. I am an Army vet and I don’t own a weapon. I see not problem with sportsmen owning and using weapons for hunting. It is their choice and I will not infringe on that right. My brother-inlaw in the Upper Peninsula a Michigan likes to hunt with bow and riffle. He feeds his family and keeps the deer population under control. I like to photograph animals and not hunt. But we can sit down, have a beer together and enjoy some great venison. The guns are not going to be taken away in this country.

    the ones that should be sanctioned are the irresponsible gun owners. Like the eight (8) year old boy in MA that was firing a full auto Uzi. In the process theweapon got away from him and he killed himself. those are the ones that should not be allowed to have weapons. Besides, who hunts with an Uzi. My politics are my own business and you should respect mine, Dan Cooper’s and everyone else. Extremists are the heart and sould of stupidity in this country. Let’s use reason and rational thought.

  14. You people sound like communist! Your dictator George did more to restrict your Constitutional rights than any other President in history. Why don’t you rave about the other ammendments? Liberals have guns too!

  15. Quicksilver:

    I respect your opinions. I even agree that Dan Cooper has a right to think how he wishes. But gun owners have a right not to patronize a business that sends money to help slit our own political throats by helping to elect a candidate who’s record on the Second Amendment is absolutely atrocious.

  16. the ones that should be sanctioned are the irresponsible gun owners. Like the eight (8) year old boy in MA that was firing a full auto Uzi. In the process theweapon got away from him and he killed himself. those are the ones that should not be allowed to have weapons.

    You want to “sanction” a dead boy, and not allow him to have weapons? That makes sense.

    Besides, who hunts with an Uzi.

    And who says that the right to own a firearm should be predicated on that firearm’s suitability for hunting?

    I don’t have to “respect” anyone’s politics, but I realize I have no right to try to disallow anyone from holding certain beliefs, or supporting certain candidates.

    That does not mean that I have an obligation to spend my money in a way that benefits him.

  17. Ralph:

    For the record, I am no fan of George W. Bush or his restrictions on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. If you spent any time here, you’d know I do, in fact, rave about other amendments. I respect that Liberals have had guns. If you knew me or my views, you would know that I think gun owners need to cultivate relationships with Democrats, and not be partisan by hitching our fortunes to the Republican Party. But there’s no way people who truly care about gun rights can find Barack Obama to be an acceptable candidate. Until he decided he wanted to be President, he spent his entire career opposing people being able to legally own guns.

  18. ‘Why don’t you rave about the other ammendments? ‘

    We do.

    ‘Liberals have guns too!’

    But you don’t do enough to keep the anti-gun politicos from damaging your credibility with us. For instance, if it was Richardson or Feingold instead of Obama, I doubt any of us would have batted an eye since those are two very pro-gun democrats.

    ‘I even agree that Dan Cooper has a right to think how he wishes. But gun owners have a right not to patronize a business that sends money to help slit our own political throats by helping to elect a candidate who’s record on the Second Amendment is absolutely atrocious.’

    Amazing that they don’t get that? They think constitutional restrictions on government activity applies to my dollars. Odd. And rather makes engaging them a bit pointless.

  19. SayUncle

    “..applies to my dollars.” That’s because they all think/believe that all of your dollars belong to(or should belong to) the GOVERNMENT. That way it can decide how much to give you back to exist on. And for damn sure that wouldn’t include any money for guns.

  20. Just when I start to feel good about America as a whole we hit election time and everybody starts acting like a stinking monkey. In a day where everything we buy is imported from China and India, we are seriously going to sit here and put another American company out of buisness because we do not agree with its political views? Cooper firearms is one of the better american-made firearms companies. I find it extrememly hard to believe that any candidate, no matter his stance on guns, would be able to eliminate gun ownership in the United States. Everyone always says “But look at England…” Guns are too much a part of our heritage as Americans. I know I will continue to support Cooper Firearms…

  21. Well, since the board of directors essentially fired Dan Cooper, there seems to be alot more of us than people like MTGunowner and his ilk.

    Face it Fudds, you’re a dying breed.

    Dan Cooper was willing to sell us out to support a politician that has never met a gun control proposal that he didn’t whole heartedly support and feel that it probably didn’t go far enough. Hell, the guy is on tape saying he supports a Federal ban on concealed carry. That’s telling people in Montana & Alaska that they can’t peaceably carry their firearms as they have been doing for years.

    Well, we aren’t going to take it anymore. We aren’t going to give our custom to businesses that will sell us down the river hoping that the crocodile will eat them last.

    This isn’t 1992 anymore. We are organized and we are going to fight.

    If you support gun banning politicians, we will NOT DO BUSINESS WITH YOU.

  22. I am on record supporting the banning of all Hunting Firearms that don’t have a self-defense purpose. Kill Bambi with your teeth, Hunters, if you can. The 2nd Amendment enumerates your right to self-defense, not some diaphonous right to shoot pheasants tied up in little cages under bushes that the guide releases when you get close.

    Now deer population control will be necessary. But a good milsurp rifle or an AR-10 can do that job.

  23. Interesting that the 1st amendment only applies to supporting Obama. Is this a future trend? A sign of the future perhaps?

    Last I checked it was not only Cooper’s right to support and give money to Obama, but it is also Sebastian’s right to tell Cooper to find another line of work.

    This episode once again shows how little liberals know about rights, economics and how businesses really work.

    For those that don’t know, a CEO is the head of the company but not the one in ultimate control. If a CEO does something perfectly legal but in doing so that action harms (or potentially harms) the company, the Board of Directors has the duty to it’s shareholders (the real owners of the company) to fire the CEO.

    Dan may have started the company, but by going public he gave over control to the shareholders as represented by the Board of Directors.

    You can debate how much harm to gun rights an Obama presidency will do and thus how much harm Dan Cooper did to Cooper Firearms by supporting Obama. The fact is that those who might have something to worry about are gun owners and they are the ones that buy Cooper Firearms’ products.

    There is a phrase that applies here: Don’t crap where you eat. As CEO Dan should have known this and kept his donations a secret by not speaking to USA Today.

    Lets try this in a simpler format:
    It is Dan Cooper’s right to speak to the press as a private citizen.
    It is Sebastian’s and everyone else’s right to agree or disagree with Dan.
    As the head of a corporation, it is Dan’s duty to not piss off his customers.
    By supporting Obama, Dan pissed off a bunch of gun owners.
    It is the duty of the Board of Directors to clean up any mess that Dan makes, upto and including firing him.

  24. I agree with what Gunstar1 stated. There’s no merit to the argument that Obama is in anyway pro-2A, pro-hunting, pro-self-defense, or pro-shooting sports. Cooper’s entitled to his views, but I don’t have to support anyone.

    I guess I’m a “wacko-McCarthyite” and whatever else, because I demand that my gun/ammo suppliers support the 2nd Amendment without reservation. We need to defend our rights vigorously, because there IS still an active campaign to limit our hobby/sport/self-defense by Obama (by past votes) and his political allies.

    If I walked into a gunshop and saw a pro-Obama sign on the wall, I’d first ask if it was a joke, and if it wasn’t I’d leave with my money.

    Right now, living in Delaware, within 10 miles of Maryland, PA, and New Jersey, I cannot just pack up my car with gear and go sport-shooting or hunting in NJ or MD, can’t defend myself in 2 of the states, and would jeopardize my life, liberty, and happiness if I didn’t closely toe the line on the complex existing laws regarding transporting arms in different states.

    Maybe people like Dan Cooper don’t understand what it’s like to deal with this BS (yet), but I can tell you that by supporting Obama they’re a step closer to it.

    Despite the severe restrictions on gun ownership in Illinois, Chicago is still a gun-homicide hotspot- I guess Obama and his state senate pals didn’t quite give enough “hope” and “change” there.

    And it’s too bad the slavishly pro-Obama media gives props to groups like AHSA, what if there was a group called “journalists for common sense” who proposed having a govt instacheck on their articles? That’s coming too at this rate. (see “Obama kicks journos off his plane”. They didn’t meet the instacheck)

  25. Losing ones job because of who you support in a presidential election, our founding fathers would be so proud.

    Why do conservatives/republicans attack peoples lively hood if you disagree with them? Blacklists, boycotts and smears. Support my position or starve. Be the same as I am or leave. You are either with us or your an unpatriotic American hater. In the end this is not about guns but about freedom and liberty of the individual. The freedom of the mind and of thought and to be different is what prevents a single party fascism.

    I don’t agree with your politics, now lets get a beer and I will see you at work tomorrow.

  26. Why do liberals/democrats believe I must support someone I disagree with? Why do liberals/democrats do the same exact thing…:

    Nowhere have we told Mr. Cooper he cannot support whomever he wants. Nowhere have we infringed Mr. Coopers rights to free speech (and nowhere near as much as Obama wants to infringe our Second Amendment rights).

    Mr. Cooper freely chose to take a stance contrary to probably the majority of his customer base, and now he is dealing with the consequences… and every action has consequences.

    …You know, that has to be one of the biggest sticking points with liberals I encounter online – the complete and utter lack of understanding of how consequences and personal responsibility work. I guess that explains why they are so very interested in nanny-state “ideals”…

Comments are closed.