mallbritton
09-12-12, 10:16
This response was prepared on Monday, 9/10/2012, but Daniel Defense feels that in no way should a statement have been released that could have distracted Americans from what the true focus of yesterday should have been, the healing and remembrance of the nearly 3,000 Americans that were taken from us on 9/11/2001.
As a manufacturer of premium modern sporting rifles, it goes without being said, Daniel Defense’s very existence depends on the Second Amendment and the individual American citizen’s God given right to keep and bear arms. Daniel Defense’s stance has always been clear and unwavering in regards to this topic: Daniel Defense supports the individual American citizen’s right to own firearms regardless of the type or classification of firearms designated by the United States Government.
Over the last few days, Daniel Defense has been made aware of comments made in an article that was printed in the most recent issue of RECOIL Magazine.
“Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting application to speak of.” –Jerry Tsai, editor of RECOIL Magazine
As an advertiser in RECOIL Magazine, Daniel Defense feels it is prudent to make clear our company’s position in regards to the comments made in the article. Daniel Defense does not condone or in any way dismiss the comments made by the author nor are those statements reflective of Daniel Defense’s core values and beliefs.
Daniel Defense continues to demonstrate its support of the Second Amendment by providing National Firearms Act short barreled rifles to the US commercial market. These are the same firearms and/or upper receiver groups that Daniel Defense offers to US Special Operation Command, further defining Daniel Defense’s position relative to regulations imposed by the US Government.
Daniel Defense will continue to judiciously investigating this matter and monitor RECOIL’s response in order make a prudent and reasonable determination of what action will be taken.
Most recently Mr. Tsai posted this message on RECOIL’s website:
“I’d like to address the comments regarding what I wrote in the MP7A1 article in RECOIL issue 4. First and foremost, I’d like to apologize for any offense that I have caused with the article. With the benefit of hindsight, I now understand the outrage, and I am greatly saddened that it was initiated by my words. Especially since, I am an unwavering supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights. I’ve chosen to spend a significant part of both my personnel and professional life immersed in this enthusiasm, so to have my support of individuals’ rights called into doubt is extremely unfortunate. With that said, I retract what I wrote in the offending paragraph within this article. It should have had been presented with more clarity.
In the article, I stated some information that was passed on to me about why the gun is not available for civilian purchase. By no means did I intend to imply that civilians are not responsible, nor do we lack the judgment to own such weapons, if I believed anything approaching this, clearly I would lead a much different life. I also mentioned in the article that the gun had no sporting purpose. This again, was information passed on to me and reported in the article without the necessary additional context. I believe everything published in RECOIL up to this point (other than this story), demonstrates we clearly understand and completely agree that guns do not need to have a sporting purpose in order for them to be rightfully available to civilians. In retrospect, I should have presented this information in a clearer manner. Although I can understand the manufacturer’s stance on the subject, it doesn’t mean that I agree with it."
"Again, I acknowledge the mistakes I made and for them I am truly sorry.” –Jerry Tsai, editor RECOIL
Read more: http://www.recoilweb.com/recoil-statement-16159.html#ixzz26BNljOtI
As a manufacturer of premium modern sporting rifles, it goes without being said, Daniel Defense’s very existence depends on the Second Amendment and the individual American citizen’s God given right to keep and bear arms. Daniel Defense’s stance has always been clear and unwavering in regards to this topic: Daniel Defense supports the individual American citizen’s right to own firearms regardless of the type or classification of firearms designated by the United States Government.
Over the last few days, Daniel Defense has been made aware of comments made in an article that was printed in the most recent issue of RECOIL Magazine.
“Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting application to speak of.” –Jerry Tsai, editor of RECOIL Magazine
As an advertiser in RECOIL Magazine, Daniel Defense feels it is prudent to make clear our company’s position in regards to the comments made in the article. Daniel Defense does not condone or in any way dismiss the comments made by the author nor are those statements reflective of Daniel Defense’s core values and beliefs.
Daniel Defense continues to demonstrate its support of the Second Amendment by providing National Firearms Act short barreled rifles to the US commercial market. These are the same firearms and/or upper receiver groups that Daniel Defense offers to US Special Operation Command, further defining Daniel Defense’s position relative to regulations imposed by the US Government.
Daniel Defense will continue to judiciously investigating this matter and monitor RECOIL’s response in order make a prudent and reasonable determination of what action will be taken.
Most recently Mr. Tsai posted this message on RECOIL’s website:
“I’d like to address the comments regarding what I wrote in the MP7A1 article in RECOIL issue 4. First and foremost, I’d like to apologize for any offense that I have caused with the article. With the benefit of hindsight, I now understand the outrage, and I am greatly saddened that it was initiated by my words. Especially since, I am an unwavering supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights. I’ve chosen to spend a significant part of both my personnel and professional life immersed in this enthusiasm, so to have my support of individuals’ rights called into doubt is extremely unfortunate. With that said, I retract what I wrote in the offending paragraph within this article. It should have had been presented with more clarity.
In the article, I stated some information that was passed on to me about why the gun is not available for civilian purchase. By no means did I intend to imply that civilians are not responsible, nor do we lack the judgment to own such weapons, if I believed anything approaching this, clearly I would lead a much different life. I also mentioned in the article that the gun had no sporting purpose. This again, was information passed on to me and reported in the article without the necessary additional context. I believe everything published in RECOIL up to this point (other than this story), demonstrates we clearly understand and completely agree that guns do not need to have a sporting purpose in order for them to be rightfully available to civilians. In retrospect, I should have presented this information in a clearer manner. Although I can understand the manufacturer’s stance on the subject, it doesn’t mean that I agree with it."
"Again, I acknowledge the mistakes I made and for them I am truly sorry.” –Jerry Tsai, editor RECOIL
Read more: http://www.recoilweb.com/recoil-statement-16159.html#ixzz26BNljOtI