A Point of Contention

Correspondent Bounty Hunter contacted Cam Edwards of NRA News after he interviewed Bob Confer on his radio show:

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:


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.

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.


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.

Grab The Post URL

HTML link code:
BB (forum) link code:

Leave a comment

  • Google+
  • 0Blogger
  • Facebook
  • Disqus

0 Response to "A Point of Contention"

Post a Comment

comments powered by Disqus