Very sad - Cooper firearms

[mtsupilot09]

I have no problem w/boycotting products based on the behavior/beliefs of the owners. That's like Obama coming out and saying he's a vegetarian, and me saying I support him- and I'm a kitchen manager at a fine dining STEAK HOUSE. It just doesn't add up. Did Mr. Cooper really think that it would go over well with his customers to announce his support of BO? Surely not. And as far as the board letting him go, that's a business decision. Regardless of the election, if your CEO brings negative feelings towards the company because of things he has said/done, it's over. Great business decision on their part.

 

[scoober78]

That's like Obama coming out and saying he's a vegetarian, and me saying I support him- and I'm a kitchen manager at a fine dining STEAK HOUSE.

Actually, its nothing like that at all.

The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right which relies on nobody's choice...being a vegetarian on the other hand is stupid.

 

[C420sailor]

...being a vegetarian on the other hand is stupid.

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

 

[Pugs]

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Well, I only eat vegetarians. Does that count?

 

[Rocketman]

To a lot of people on left a scoped 7.62 bolt-action rifle is a sniper rifle and the round it shoots is an armor piercing round. Makes no difference why they think that. Hidden agenda or lack of understanding makes no difference.

Believe it.

 

[Flash]

To a lot of people on left a scoped 7.62 bolt-action rifle is a sniper rifle and the round it shoots is an armor piercing round. Makes no difference why they think that. Hidden agenda or lack of understanding makes no difference. Believe it.

Huh? Who thinks this?

 

[Pugs]

Huh? Who thinks this?

The same people that think a semi-automatic M-4 is an "assault rifle"

Oh, a name? How about Rep James Moran (D) of VA?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-654

when you're categorizing a weapon as evil simply because the diameter of the bullet you're showing a remarkable lack of common sense.

another? How about Ted Kennedy's (D) sponsorship of H.R. 654?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP02619: Where he wants to ban

"a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

Gee, that sounds an awful like the Barnes TSX that I use as the primary hunting bullet in my 7mm-08....

You're a smart guy Flash, don't be naive. It's about control, not guns.

 

[Flugelman]

Well, I only eat vegetarians. Does that count?

There's a place for ALL of God's creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.

 

[Flash]

The same people that think a semi-automatic M-4 is an "assault rifle"

Oh, a name? How about Rep James Moran (D) of VA?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-654

when you're categorizing a weapon as evil simply because the diameter of the bullet you're showing a remarkable lack of common sense.

While I don't believe that prohibition of specific calibers is usually effective, I can see the reasoning behind it. I see no reason for a regular civilian to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, same with a machine gun. And even the current administration does not consider them regular/normal weapons:

Iranian Sniper Rifles

Of course, all someone would have to do is make a .495 caliber sniper rifle to get around it.

another? How about Ted Kennedy's (D) sponsorship of H.R. 654?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP02619: Where he wants to ban

"a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

Gee, that sounds an awful like the Barnes TSX that I use as the primary hunting bullet in my 7mm-08....

You're a smart guy Flash, don't be naive. It's about control, not guns.

Again, problematic, but I can see the point. I particularly see the problem of how to determine which bullets would be 'armor-piercing' and what that armor actually is.

Either way, I don't see them passing too much 'gun' control legislation, it is just not a winner for Democrats.

 

[C420sailor]

I see no reason for a regular civilian to own a .50 caliber sniper rifle, same with a machine gun.

You may not, sir, but I most definitely do.

 

[Flash]

You may not, sir, but I most definitely do.

For what use? Taking out armored vehicles that are going to come and take you away to a re-education camp?

 

[C420sailor]

For what use? Taking out armored vehicles that are going to come and take you away to a re-education camp?

As much as I fear more edumacation, no.

The fifty is simply has excellent ballistics for long range shooting. There are a lot of guys who shoot all their lives and simply get bored with shooting at the same 300 yard target. Shooting at extreme ranges (800 yards and beyond) brings with it a whole new set of problems. If you're shooting at a moving target (an animal, let's say), you have to calculate lead based on the duration of time the round will be in the air. You will also have varying wind along the bullet's flight path, and you will have to account for coriolis effect (it's true, I swear). It's just a whole new challenge.

You could apply the "need" argument to eliminate just about every weapon out there. I'd say the only weapon I truly need would be my Glock, for home defense and personal protection when I go through some bad areas. I don't "need" an AR-15, but I enjoy shooting it and cleaning and upgrading it. It's a fun hobby, just like shooting a fifty is. And if you haven't fired a fifty, I highly recommend it. It's a blast.

 

[nittany03]

For what use? Taking out armored vehicles that are going to come and take you away to a re-education camp?

Come on, Flash. I know it's Halloween and all, but that's a straw man and you know it. Because they're fun to shoot! At paper. Or steel targets. Or pumpkins. Or whatever. Maybe someone who lives out West on a hundred acres wants to build a 1,000yd shooting range. What's illegal about that?

This is supposed to be a free country. Why do I need to have a NEED to do something if I'm not hurting someone else? Why do I have to justify my passions and hobbies to someone else? My right to swing my fist stops only where someone else's nose begins.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Well I for one haven't heard of anyone taking a Ma Deuce and shooting up the town lately. However they are pretty fun to shoot and I think taking that away or restricting it so that's it's more trouble than its worth is silly. On that note I haven't heard of any sharpshooters capping people with .50 cal rifles either.

But that's just me.

It's not like I can roll up into the store and grab one. I do have to register them. So what's the problem?

 

[Pugs]

Either way, I don't see them passing too much 'gun' control legislation, it is just not a winner for Democrats.

Your arguments are hollow and you know it. If they get both the presidency and the legislature and insert their favorite picks into the Supreme court you will see just how quickly all sort of "reasonable" controls they will put forth.

Mark my words.