Some of y'all are thinking with something other than your heads. You're angry. Okay. That's fine.
Now, take that anger, put it in a nice little box, and file it away for when you can do something wtih it.
And open up the box labeled "logic."
Okay. Logic dictates the following:
His initial blog was his true feeling on the subject, including the decision to refer to these as terrorist rifles.
He only changed his tune when he saw the tide turning against him.
He is desperate to get back his endorsements deals, his privileges, etc.
He will seek any opportunity and say whatever his necessary to regain his chosen lifestyle.
His rapid change of story does not refect a sudden revelation of the true nature of the 2nd Amendment, but only a desire to save his commercial posterior.
Those hunters, the Fudds, who agree with him will see him as a victim who is saying what he has to do get his career back. They will, of course, be right insofar as his motivation is concerned. His rehabilitation will only further aggravate them.
Soon enough, he will get his career back, and will be more circumspect in revealing his true feelings. He can do so by ending his SWAT article with a few sentences along the lines of "I was wrong. These weapons are good for hunting, if you are hunting people." That will be a true statement, and one either side can spin the way they want it spun.
The ironic thing is everyone expects him to be a great spokesman for our side. Yet, in no other situation is someone with such a great motivation to lie through his teeth considered to be credible. He is biased by his own self-interest to make statements that will repudiate prior statements (his blog) made when he was not under duress.