Like I said, you are misinformed.
It does seem that your quote does not support your statement. Just going by what is here, is all.
Aside from the fact that your quotes don’t show what you say they do, the underlying concept of your objection makes no sense.
You’ve been shown this before, but I’ll assume you simply forgot. What you quoted is a silly standard by which to judge the board. You can’t tell much about someone by what they don’t post.
For instance, am I to assume you buy into the Benghazi-conspiracy nonsense because you don’t post in the two current threads about it? Am I to assume that you support every thread you don’t post something decrying the subject?
It’s just a stupid way to try to scrape up a clot of evidence.
Sometimes I regret being misunderstood so much. Then I remember that if I were clearly understood, I’d have been stoned by now. I mean, like, with rocks.
Because it’s less stupid than leaning Republican, and a majority of people here at least desire not to be stupid.
Hey luci, wanna get stoned with something else?
I’d appreciate your expanding this argument a bit. Are you saying that I failed to precisely quote him, or that my summary of his comments is unfair?
This:
Again, just going by what is presented here.
Stating that something might be or might not be, stating what they think is more likely barring any evidence otherwise is not the same as making a claim. What you offered up is merely his saying “cite please” to your claim, not making a claim himself. Perhaps he does elsewhere, I do not know, but not in what you have provided.
Again, I have not read and have no interest in reading that thread, but the point of contention based just on this seems to be you stating that the gunpowder used in fireworks would not have been covered in the legislation that the NRA apparently blocked, exempted, and 'luci questioning that claim, doubting it even, and requesting a cite in support of it. Not sure why you would expect others to slap him down for that.
Also once again, it would not matter for the purposes of this thread if he was being a jerk and/or an idiot. Again, individual posters being jerks does not inform much; others ignoring or not noticing jerkish behavior does not inform much.
OK, here’s what we do. I will post the opinion that all Republicans are goat-felching Nazis, without exception. Then, everybody here who’s political stance is anywhere to the left of Calvin Coolidge can march in and renounce, denounce and condemn the perfidious 'luc. Bookmark the page.
Then. the next time somebody tries to pull this happy horseshit, we simply reference the bookmark and say, no, look here, a genuine lefty, being renounced, denounced and condemned by lefties for calumny, perfidy and conduct unbecoming a hippy.
I realize that this might well damage my spotless reputation amongst the tighty righties. But if stern duty demands…
Now, now 'luci. You can’t make blanket statements like that. There exists the extreme possibility that some Republicans have never had access to a goat. [/bricker_shield]
That won’t work. We will just think that Der Trihs borrowed your computer and we will ignore the post the way most of that nonsense gets ignored.
The current issue, (in this rather silly discussion), is whether attacks on the Right that were both serious and unfair would prompt some sort of counter from the Left.
The discussion is silly because even if we found examples of one side “policing” their own, the response by those (Left and Right) who insist on either claiming injury or claiming that such injury is more typical of “the other side” would be that there were not enough posters policing their own. Frankly, it is unlikely that we could even get broad consensus to categorize the majority of perceived attacks as either “attacks” or “unfair.”
Those who recognize that the board does lean Left but that nastiness is still an individual activity and it is spread across the political spectrum are probably not generally interested in wading into this morass.
I don’t know where to begin.
Are you familiar with the scorn heaped on people elsewhere on this board who use the “I’m just asking questions,” technique?
There are many legitimate reasons to ask for a cite. But among their number is not this situation, in which I declare that the NRA didn’t take a particular action. I hope you see why this is so – there is no real way to cite an action not taken.
That thread began with a claim that the NRA’s opposition to taggants in gunpowder frustrated law enforcement’s ability to quickly identify the Boston bombers. When it was revealed that the bombers used powder from fireworks, I said that the NRA never opposed taggants in fireworks.
The person who claims they DID would be the one with the burden of proof.
So I contend that this was not a genuine request for a cite, since what possible evidence could be offered as proof of the claim?
If it’s not a genuine request for a cite, what was it? I contend it was a claim in its own right: a rhetor’s technique to advance a claim by demanding a cite carries the implicit claim that the failure to provide such a cite is proof of the contrary position. Indeed, elucidator asks the reader to infer that because the NRA once opposed gunpowder taggants, they also opposed fireworks taggants:
The sarcastic tone of the line attributed to the NRA and the clear statement that such a line (and such a position) is “unlikely” adds up to a rhetorical device that advances a claim. Just because it doesn’t explictly state the claim is no reason to pretend the claim doesn’t exist.
Am I wrong in this? Honestly?
Since Bricker is fighting this so hard, I should mention that according to a random site I looked up on the intarnet box:
Sounds like taggants in firearm black powder might find their way into fireworks as well.
But I’m not a fireworks or black powder gun guy.
Yeah, Bricker’s right.
Elucid’s asking for a cite was just like people “just asking questions” about all the Jews who worked in the WTC calling in sick on 911.
Doesn’t it seem a little heavy handed to insinuate that 'luci is equivalent to anti-Semite conspiracy theorists?
Never mind that at least some fireworks uses the same formulation of black powder that firearms do, so Bricker is off base.
Well, to be ruthlessly fair, the stuff in bullets isn’t “black powder”. But it hardly matters since we were talking about bombs anyway.
I regret that I shall have to denounce, renounce and condemn you. Tut-tut, my good man, not the done thing, don’t you know.
I meant specifically black powder weapons, like the Civil War buffs use.
I know that modern weapons use smokeless powder. I’ve seen enough reenactments to know that black powder produces so much smoke that it’s almost a defensive smokescreen. 
I withdraw my renounce, denounce and condemn, with the hope that you have not suffered any permanent damage thereby.
I can’t promise that I will walk on without a tear, but walk I shall.
It may help to remember that the original impetus to gunpowder taggants was related entirely to their application as bomb material, as outlined in this article:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950502&slug=2118763
Tag Explosives To Trace Bombs? Nra, Others Blocked Research
Why? Well what else but…
I suggest that the political clout of the NRA is very much on display here. You may wish to lay the blame elsewhere, perhaps the League of Women Voters, or ACORN. Maybe CASA.