doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com COOPER ARMS

Quote
"After the aforementioned S&W debacle, and the Zumbo affair, to think that one could be the head of a firearms company and NOT have such donations seen and acknowledged, let alone the statements to reporters, and to not expect it to have a negative affect on the companies business, is simply irresponsible.

I think that the damage is done, and as long as Mr Cooper holds shares in the company, they are going to suffer, as there are too many that will not spend any of their money if they believe that any of it may turn around and be spent on furthering interests that are directly opposed to their own"

Trevi:

I think it should be pointed out that S&W has come light years in redeeming themselves after that fool they had for a CEO was ousted. I quit boycottng them long ago since they repudiated his position. As an aside my carry gun is a S&W 4008 in 40S&W.
Furthermore S&W sends two factory gunsmiths to my club once a year and they will work on any S&W product on the spot for a $20 donation to the NRA. The essentialy rebuilt a Model 28 Highway Patrolman who over 30,000 rounds thru it for me two years ago. In this case their positive actions go a long way.
Cooper can do the same but whether they choose to remains to be seen.
Jim

As far as Cooper goes, since his name is still on the Company, I'd bet he still owns a controlling interest in it. I'd also guess he "fired" himself to try and prevent the inevitable boycott of his company's products. For the guys not from the USA, I don't think you really understand how seriously we take our 2nd Amendment rights, and thats why we still have'em. Don't worry, once the election is over we'll all calm down...Geo

King, do be serious, no banks have been nationalized, nor insurance or mortgage companies. They have been "bailed out" which is not the same.

Dig, don't take an example literally. Mr. Cooper, by supporting Obama -who clearly opposes guns- is going against his company as a whole, its shareholders and employees. No one is denying him his rights; even his right to act as a perfect idiot. That is not to say the company is better off without him around. Good riddance.

JC

If obslamma wins or not I won't be calming down anytime soon. I am a contractor and a few "friends & associates" who are gun owners are proving to be hypocrytes and are about to find out first hand about redistribution of wealth.

I take it these are subcontractors?

I,and I know there are many others, could say a great deal more here about the insanity of any gun owner supporting the socialist Obama other policies aside. You who post here from other Countries(Canada,Ireland,Great Britian etc. )have already lost your firearms freedoms for the most part and you'll have to pardon us if we don't want to roll over and lose ours.
What ever happens on Tuesday we will never give up and concede like a herd of mindless sheep. We are made of stronger stuff than that.
Jim

I wonder if anyone bothered to try to quantify the actual damage done to S&W by that particular example. I have my doubts that they would have survived at all, had that not been as large as they were, and as entrenched in as many "corporate" markets as they were.

Sadly not the case with the Cooper Firearms Company. They make a luxury priced product that fills a niche in the marketplace that relies upon the continued goodwill of the customer base. They are going to need an awful lot of luck to weather this, more, even if the Democrats take the seat.

Smith &Wesson survived and learned. Dunno if Cooper Arms will. Anyone else that wishes to keep a firearms business as a going concern, in this day and age, could learn a lot from both examples.

Cheers
Trev

No one is denying Cooper, or anyone, has the right to donate money to whatever candidate they wish or to exercise freedom of speech. However, like anything else, actions can have consequences. Given the charged political nature of firearms ownership and the past history of customer backlash (like the public reaction to Smith & Wesson cozying up to the Clinton Administration as someone has already mentioned) against firearms companies that support pro-gun control candidates or gun control laws, it's no surprise that the BOD asked Cooper to resign. It was in the interest of protecting the company. When it comes to politically charged issues, those involved in the struggle put their money where their mouth is.

If Sarah Brady gave money to Ron Paul, it would not surprise anyone here to see her removed from her position, and the reasons would be obvious to us all.

Dan Cooper just learned how true the old admonishment not to discuss religion or politics at work is. There is no "right" to make stupid business decisions that is protected from the wrath of the owners or supervisors in that business. Anyone who would put an Obama sticker on their car and park in the lot of a small business where they work or brag about the wonderful Obama fund raiser they attended the evening before is tempting the fates on their livelihood and is not very intelligent.......maybe not intelligent enough to remain employed there. I can understand the decision to terminate those who make a decision to work against the interests of the company.

Bob, funny you should give the example of the bumper sticker. I heard on the radio a couple days ago of a fellow with 50 employees. He indicated that if Obama is elected, he will be needing to get rid on at least 10 of his employees and raise the price on his product.

Trying to figure out who might go, he walked thru the parking lot and observed Obama bumper stickers. They made the decision easy for him as those were the ones being laid off, if he is elected.

Lenard

I guess it depends on the definition of nationalize, Jaycee. American citizens through their government are taking ownership positions with shares in those private companies. Nationalize, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is to "convert (land, railways, coal mines etc) into national property or undertakings." I am serious, and so is US government (which took its lead from Labour's Gordon Brown) in trying to protect taxpayers investments in those firms.