Originally Posted by dZ
Some readers have misinterpreted a recent feature story in RECOIL magazine as a reflection of HK policy. Heckler & Koch has a long presence in the US civilian market and throughout that time has been an ardent and passionate supporter of the Second Amendment and the American civilian shooter. This will always be the case. The contents, opinions, and statements expressed in that feature story are those of the writer, not Heckler and Koch’s. Additionally, the writer and RECOIL magazine have issued a clarification and apology for the ill-chosen words used in the story.
I don't think too many American readers are blaming H&K for not selling the rifle to civilians. It is, after all, illegal under federal law.
However, the editor's "clarification" is anything but, in my opinion. His initial statement was clear and unambiguous, rather difficult to misinterpret and if he meant something other than what he said, he is clearly not well-skilled at putting thoughts into words.
His "clarification" took a clear, unmistakable, unambiguous statement and made it vague, unintelligible and ambiguous, while simultaneously seeming to attempt to transfer any angst to H&K, by making this statement: " It's their decision to make and their decision they have to live with not mine nor anybody else's. "
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.