I am so affraid for our country if Obama wins on Tuesday. I can't believe so many Americans can be that stupid to elect this guy. I hope I am wrong and McCain wins. I can't believe Dan Cooper would support Obama, I bet Mr. Cooper never thought this would happen. He just brought his whole company down. I feel sorry for the people that are working at Cooper Firearms. I will never buy a Cooper rifle our product ever, and I will make sure all of my hunting, shooting and range buddies never do as well. I heard there was a Huge posting at my local gun range about this topic. I can't beleive anyone who owns firearms would ever vote for Obama, scarry!
Cooper Supports Obama...
- Thread starter Rustystud
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Someone once said we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
- tell that to someone who's house is being robbed, or who is being raped, assaulted, or murdered - all without anything to protect themselves with.
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Tell that to someone who is living under a daily bombardment of their country in flames, with rape, assault, murder and plunder on their door step... If you want to live in fear, that's your choice, I opt not to, that's my choice....
It's easy to say things like that but in reality if someone broke into your house with a gun and you had nothing do defend yourself with.... I'm sure you too would be afraid. It's not a choice, it's an involuntary reaction.
I feel safe as long as I have something to defend myself with. That's what this thread is really all about.
And, by the way, I don't live in fear... those were your words. I am, however, very concerned about Obama being elected especially with a filibuster proof democratic congress.
Here's an excerpt of an article detailing Obama's record:
Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.
You have no problem with this? You have nothing to worry about? This is who you want as you President?
I don't think that Obama will have to retreat on his promice not to take our guns because he will sign the UN Treaty that will do it for him. This story is old but still important for us to remember.
Eagle
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. seeking global gun-control?
Conference moving toward plan that would regulate U.S. arms
Posted: July 16, 2003
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.N. group is working toward establishment of an international system to register and regulate civilian possession of firearms, according to a former congressman.
The ultimate aim of many members of the conference on small arms is to outlaw personal ownership of guns altogether, said Georgia</SPAN> Republican Bob Barr in an interview yesterday on the newly syndicated WorldNetDaily Report with Joseph Farah.
Bob Barr
Barr was an official representative of the U.S. State Department's delegation at the conference's week-long session last week. It is known officially as the first Biennial Meeting</SPAN> of States on the Implementation of the Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
At the beginning of the session, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan</SPAN> urged members to redouble efforts to curb small arms and light weapons.
"The United Nations remains firmly committed to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects," he said.
The group will meet again in 2005, followed by a review conference scheduled for 2006.
If not for the U.S. State Department and organizations such as the National Rifle Association, "this locomotive would have had a lot more steam," Barr said.
Barr commended U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton</SPAN> for focusing the U.N.'s attention on international trafficking of illicit arms and not on U.S. ownership of arms.
"He has done an outstanding job of monitoring this and standing up to it in a way the State Department frequently does not do," Barr said.
However, Barr warned that many member nations, including the UK, Netherlands and India</SPAN>, want to set up a legally binding protocol requiring all U.N. countries to start registration of firearms.
The potential implications of that are enormous, he said, noting it is a small step toward the ultimate nightmare of American gun owners – "the U.N. knocking on our door to get our firearms."
"If we were to allow in any way, shape or form the U.N. to begin the process of registering and regulating fire arms – ultimately their goal of doing away with personal firearms – we would have dealt a blow to our sovereignty," he said.
Barr called on citizens to urge their representatives to stay on top of the issue and ensure the U.S. is not faced with a legally-binding document that would commit the country to some form of firearms registration and regulation by the U.N. or any outside authority.
"The presence of several anti-gun groups at this and other related conferences underscores the threat they pose to the constitutional [COLOR=blue! important]rights[/COLOR]</SPAN> of American citizens if we fail to closely monitor their activities," Barr said in a statement. "In fact, many of these groups receive substantial funding from anti-firearms governments to move their agenda."
During the conference, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey released its findings for 2002, which paid special attention to U.S. gun ownership.
"By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," the report said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."
Eagle
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. seeking global gun-control?
Conference moving toward plan that would regulate U.S. arms
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.N. group is working toward establishment of an international system to register and regulate civilian possession of firearms, according to a former congressman.
The ultimate aim of many members of the conference on small arms is to outlaw personal ownership of guns altogether, said Georgia</SPAN> Republican Bob Barr in an interview yesterday on the newly syndicated WorldNetDaily Report with Joseph Farah.
Bob Barr
Barr was an official representative of the U.S. State Department's delegation at the conference's week-long session last week. It is known officially as the first Biennial Meeting</SPAN> of States on the Implementation of the Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
At the beginning of the session, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan</SPAN> urged members to redouble efforts to curb small arms and light weapons.
"The United Nations remains firmly committed to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects," he said.
The group will meet again in 2005, followed by a review conference scheduled for 2006.
If not for the U.S. State Department and organizations such as the National Rifle Association, "this locomotive would have had a lot more steam," Barr said.
Barr commended U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton</SPAN> for focusing the U.N.'s attention on international trafficking of illicit arms and not on U.S. ownership of arms.
"He has done an outstanding job of monitoring this and standing up to it in a way the State Department frequently does not do," Barr said.
However, Barr warned that many member nations, including the UK, Netherlands and India</SPAN>, want to set up a legally binding protocol requiring all U.N. countries to start registration of firearms.
The potential implications of that are enormous, he said, noting it is a small step toward the ultimate nightmare of American gun owners – "the U.N. knocking on our door to get our firearms."
"If we were to allow in any way, shape or form the U.N. to begin the process of registering and regulating fire arms – ultimately their goal of doing away with personal firearms – we would have dealt a blow to our sovereignty," he said.
Barr called on citizens to urge their representatives to stay on top of the issue and ensure the U.S. is not faced with a legally-binding document that would commit the country to some form of firearms registration and regulation by the U.N. or any outside authority.
"The presence of several anti-gun groups at this and other related conferences underscores the threat they pose to the constitutional [COLOR=blue! important]rights[/COLOR]</SPAN> of American citizens if we fail to closely monitor their activities," Barr said in a statement. "In fact, many of these groups receive substantial funding from anti-firearms governments to move their agenda."
During the conference, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey released its findings for 2002, which paid special attention to U.S. gun ownership.
"By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," the report said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."
Last edited:
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
...problem with this??? I dont like it if that's what you're asking.
Worry? Worrying is a waste of time. Worrying will not change anything. If I was diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow, I would not worry about it. I live one day at a time and deal with the issues as they come. My God is way bigger than problems and worry.
Who I want as president? Where in anything I wrote do you get that idea? Not in a million years.
I simply quoted a national leader of another country that was under attack and facing be over run by Nazi Germany. I'm glad you don't live in fear. I don't fear the possibility of an Obama presidency or anything else. Fear is like worrying it accomplishes nothing but helping your enemy by undermining your judgement and will.
Varmint Hunter
Well-Known Member
Asking Dan Cooper to step down is merely symbolic, even if he "officially" did so.
Dan is entitled to his political opinions and can spend his money any way he wants to. This is America. However, American shooters are not going to take this lightly and they too have the right to respond by spending their money wherever they would like.
Personally, I think this was a very foolish (business) move on Dan's part.
Dan is entitled to his political opinions and can spend his money any way he wants to. This is America. However, American shooters are not going to take this lightly and they too have the right to respond by spending their money wherever they would like.
Personally, I think this was a very foolish (business) move on Dan's part.
There are some folks here that don't want to hear this, but let's face it, no human being in his right mind would want to hurt his own business on purpose like that; a person has to be besides himself or herself to want to do a thing like that! Now, we're all smart enough to know that, something is very wrong! I don't know how many employees this company has but would it be fair to punish a bunch of families with their children because of the actions of a person that's not in his right mind? I'm a minister not a politician I just care and feel for those families. I would advise that we don't run like an angry mob trying to hurt ourselves and our country any more that it has already been!!!
IMO, buying a product involves many decisions. I have not heard anyone say not to buy a rifle....except perhaps Obama
So why not buy from a company that rifle that supports YOUR values? Afterall, don't the families of other gunsmiths deserve your "care"?
Since you are a minister, would you buy from GM, or Ford if the CEO professed to be a Satan worshiper? I bet that you might decide that the "other" company deserved your money. While this is obviously an extreme oversimplification, I just think that folks don't need to buy from this particular American company!
edge.
You need to re-read my statement and try to understand where I'm coming from! I'm basing all my sayings on the belief that this gentleman is out of his mind. There are thousands of ways to come against my post, but any one that wants to understand it will.
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
IMO, buying a product involves many decisions. I have not heard anyone say not to buy a rifle....except perhaps Obama
So why not buy from a company that rifle that supports YOUR values? Afterall, don't the families of other gunsmiths deserve your "care"?
So I am a little confused with your post? I plan to do just that... buy from a rifle company that supports my gun values, which is presently known as Cooper Firearms of Montana. Cooper Arms is not Dan Cooper... they asked him to resign, which he did, and expressly and publicly stated they do not share Dan Cooper's political views. I take them for their word and action. I am satisified. If you want to punish the employees of Cooper Arms for Dan Cooper's politicla views, that's your right and choice. It doesn't make much sense to me to punish fellow gun, hunting and shooting enthusiests because of their former boss's actions. Especially in this day and age. In fact, not only is it self destructive to our cause but it makes us look pretty wicked to bystanders to see us devouring our own like this and it sickens me to tell ya the truth
Excuse me... but "The Company" did not contribute to Obama, Dan Cooper did. Go back and look at all the contributions. they were all from Dan, some in the name of the Company, since at the time he was president, but they were all from him. Why he did it, I don't have a clue... like a lemming running headlong over a cliff. But IT WASN"T THE COMPANY. Why punish them? That's about as sensless and self defeating as what Dan Cooper did by contributing to Obama. Crazy
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Eaglet, I understood your post very clearly, some folks just get bind with fear, hate or whatever.
