Just listened to the Friday show playback and have a bone to pick with you on the interview of Bob Confer. Yes, his article is good, up to a point. When he states "They want to disarm them not only of justifiably-maligned assault rifles..." then he is no different than any other anti-gunner since he believes their hype on so called "assault" rifles. Yet, nowhere in your interview did you bring this point up. To let this part of the article slide is not right as it makes it seem as if NRANews is in total agreement with everything in the article or at least listening to the interview that is the impression I was left with. Mr. Confer has been called out on that part of the article on some blogs.
Here is one along with Mr. Confer defending why he thinks so-called "assault" rifles are evil:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/06/justifiably-maligned-assault-rifles_07.html
Bob Confer said...
I wrote that line despite my strong desire for gun rights. This reference is based upon my belief that assault rifles have no role other than for warfare. These guns are not the target shooting type, nor are they useful for hunting purposes. They are designed for killing of human beings and the damage of war equipment and facilities. In many of life experiences I've witnessed their owners using them and/or revering them as "toys." A gun is a tool and deserves respect.Follow-up:
Yes, I'll admit to a point, that you have to wonder if we are going down the slippery slope: take away assault rifles and pistols are next...but, assault rifles as a rule are a minority - and a distinct one at that - of all gun ownership.
Maybe you can sway me. In any debates I have in the newspaper or on the air against the gun-haters who despise guys like you and I, I have limited "ammo" by which to defend assault rifles. I am open to your suggestions, because as the editorial details, I believe gun rights as a whole to be inalienable.
I will be on the air again (WLVL AM) in two weeks and I know this UN issue will be one of the topics used by callers.
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/06/justifiably-maligned-assault-rifles_08.html
So, I feel NRANews did not cover this article as completely as it should of during the interview. Giving the author a pass just because he lambasts the UN is not good enough. We have enough problems with the anti-gunners, let alone people (allegedly) on our side buying into the hype over so-called "assault" weapons.
I wish I could of heard this interview live because I would of been calling or talkbacking on why you were skipping that part of the article, especially based on the response Mr. Confer gave that reiterates his position on that statement!!!
None of my AR-15's has killed anyone but they sure have put a ton of holes in paper and cardboard during training, plinking, and competition. But according to Mr. Confer they are only used for warfare.
Cam Edwards replies:
You're right, actually. I should have called him on this and I didn't. Poor planning and execution on my part.That's gracious of him to admit it--unlike Mr. Confer, who hasn't been back to explain whether or not he's been "swayed"--which makes him suspect as a "gun rights leader." It's bewildering--there are so many knowledgeable gun rights advocates who can teach us--and the novice who disparages a class of firearms uniquely suited to militia service gets air time. Confer's position is inexcusably ignorant, and an insult to those who have taken real risks and made real sacrifices because of their refusal to surrender on this point.
Let's hope Mr. Edwards does more than just a one-on-one admission. Untold thousands no doubt heard the program--they deserve to know the guy everybody's giving kudos to is appearing to be a sterile queen bee.
6 comments:
Mr. Confer's silence is deafening.
"Bob Confer said...
I wrote that line despite my strong desire for gun rights. This reference is based upon my belief that assault rifles have no role other than for warfare. These guns are not the target shooting type, nor are they useful for hunting purposes. They are designed for killing of human beings and the damage of war equipment and facilities."
Target shooting and hunting aren't mentioned anywhere in the second amendment. Anyone that cares enough to read the statements of the men that wrote and signed the constitution would find out that the purpose for it was a last ditch defense against tyranny, either foreign or domestic. Every other use is gravy.
Whether someone agrees whether it is possible to fight and win against the government in that hypothetical scenario is not relevant. What is relevant is that the founding fathers fully intended for the people to have rifles equivalent in capability to those in the hands of our government so they would be capable of resisting.
Battles are won by the army that chooses the battleground - and political battles are no different. We're letting the antis pick the battlefield when we try to justify our ownership of "assault rifles."
What the "gun rights" movement needs is a lot more people that buy a gun specifically because it is an instrument of war and a lot less people that say, "Well, yes it looks mean, but I go target shooting with it."
This is a battle of absolutes. As soon as we give up on the absolute truth that the Second Amendment is about liberty insurance and we start pandering to "sporting purpose" arguments, we have lost. When we dip our toes into the pools of relativism, they've won. "Sporting purpose" can be redefined and redefined at will.
My only "sporting purpose" is to ensure that I remain free.
Well said m1thumb.
The first rifle I ever bought bigger than a .22 was an M1A -- 22 years ago. I bought it because "it is an instrument of war". At the time a few friends wondered about it; I told them that the best possible outcome would be that it would be the worst investment I ever made but that the way the world was going it could quite possibly be the best investment I ever made.
The way things are going it looks like it might not be too much longer before it gets used for something other than punching holes in paper -- and I don't intend to be sporting about it. Sometimes I think such use should have started many years ago.
Cam did just admit on air (6/16) that he missed that part of the article and would of confronted him on it if had read it.
Bounty Hunter
Post a Comment