Aw, you’re still talking about taggants. I’d hoped this had evolved into a more general thread on the NRA. Because with the stupidity of this thread, the NRA is being fucking stupid by making their latest rally about everything but guns. It’s as if they don’t know that their power comes from the fact that they have bipartisan support. Instead, they are pulling Tea Party bullshit. Really.
The OP – and many of the early participants as well – appear unwilling to explicitly acknowledge the taggant claim has been thoroughly trashed. They no longer defend it, of course, but they are seemingly terrified of posting a simple, straightforward “I was wrong,” admission.
But since the original post was so explicitly focused on taggants, it’s easy to see why this hasn’t evolved into a more general NRA thread. Why don’t you start one, if you’re so keen to see one?
Guys, if Bricker has to do his victory dance several times before anybody notices, he tends to pout. So lets get on this…
Wow, Bricker, you sure showed 'em! Absitively, posolutely crushed all opposition, wiped the floor with 'em, they’re gonna think twice before they mess with the Brickerzilla again!
There! Happy now?
I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out that there is a discussion about taggants going on in here.
No, elucidator. I grant that it’s possible you’re being sincere – it happens so rarely that i don’t have the slightest clue what it might look like – but it doesn’t come off as sincere. Certainly it’s not “a simple, straightforward ‘I was wrong,’ admission.”
Well, that’s rather odd. You say sincerity on my part is “rare”. Which means, according to standard English, that it does happen, but seldom. Yet, in the next breath, you claim not to have “the slightest clue what it might look like” if I were sincere.
Which is it, then? It has never happened, and you have no idea what it might look like, or it has happened, but rarely, and you do know what it looks like. Otherwise, you could not make any such distinction.
A trivial point, to be sure. Just as trivial as your only point thus far, which is that the NRA has not made any public pronouncements on the issue since 1998. Is there any doubt in your mind as to how the NRA would respond if the issue of taggants gained some notoriety? In that light, the fact that the NRA has made no such public position is more about the minor impact of the taggant issue than anything else.
And for this you demand that someone throw themselves at your feet and blubber apologies? Wouldn’t it be equally valid to say they were opposed in 1998, and have not yet publicly changed their minds? Hence, it is reasonable to assume that they still are?
I don’t remember the last time you added anything substantive to a thread.
Their latest rally? You mean their annual meeting?
Yeah, I have noted before how the NRA has become much more partisan than it has in the past. They started taking positions on taxes and labor unions. It was fucking retarded, and after the response to the Newtown massacre, they were headed out the door or being put in a corner… until Feinstein’s AWB made them look prescient and re-established their credibility for a lot of people.
I think he’s probably one of the funnier posters. He probably ran out of things to say in the first 20 threadsd on gun control (we all did, at this point we are recycling things we already said in other threads that people in the current thread hadn’t read of picked up on).
My comment isn’t restricted to threads about guns.
Don’t read them. Problem solved. You’re welcome.
I was being kind. The more truthful comment – that your sincerity is so fleeting I have no idea if I’ve ever seen it – seemed too wounding.
Some of my other points are: even if the NRA had flayed puppies and beheaded one hostage for each day taggants continued to be added to gunpowder, it would have had fuck-all to do with the resolution of this case, since the bomber used black powder extracted from fireworks.
Well, now, hoss, don’t you worry yourself about that, you just go right ahead and let 'er rip! Can’t kill a bull with a Nerf bat.
IOW, “Winning! Even if I failed epically on the central point but don’t have the courage to admit it, certainly not to you people”.
As if *that *was all we were discussing here. 
Agreed. The bull is strong with you.
Oooh, snap! You know, for a Republican, you’re quite the witty fellow!
:eek:
Oh, snap indeed.
Of course, once again we see the relief in tone as we migrate away from the OP:
And migrate towards trading polite barbs. And impolite ones.
How about we return to the OP’s premise and see if anyone is willing to clearly, unambiguously, and sincerely admit error therein?
Well, lets take out the Counselor approved zircon encrusted semantic parsing tweezers…
Did the NRA oppose taggants in gunpowder? Yes, they did. Matter of record. Did they later change their minds, and approve? Not so far as we know. Is the NRA a politically powerful group, such that we might fairly assume that their opposition would be sufficient to block such legislation? Recent evidence would say that was plausible. At any rate, you would be hard pressed to prove that it didn’t.
Could the gunpower used in the bombings have been traced if taggants were required? Maybe yes, maybe no, but without such taggants it would be impossible to track the gunpowder. So far, so good.
Did the lack of taggants have any real significance to the resolution of this case. No. But so what? The OP did not say that taggants would have resolved the case, he said that their use was impossible, and claimed that the blame for that restriction can be fairly placed on the NRA. As it happens, whether or not taggants were available and required did not affect this case in the slightest.
But, strictly speaking, the OP did not claim that it did. Only that it was impossible to do so. And he is right, because if they are not there, they cannot be used. And unless you can point out some other opposing force to taggants with the sort of political clout the NRA can bring to bear, assigning responsibility to them is plausible and reasonable.
All of this notwithstanding, I think Elvish ought to admit error. Because you need this so very, very badly. So, c’mon, Elvish, throw the guy a bone! He hasn’t won one in a long, long time.
(bolding added)
Ahem, the blackpowder in question came from fireworks. That’s what these monsters used to kill and maim people. Maybe the OP was referring to the National Fireworks Association? :smack:
If these monsters removed the taggants before completing their bombs or not having taggants in the first place amounts to the same end result, no taggants to be found at the crime scene.
Not sure I quite see your point. There are no taggants in any gunpowder. That they were not present in fireworks gunpowder makes no difference. One might well wonder why they went to the trouble of dismantling fireworks when black gunpowder is so available. I’m going with “stupid”, absent any further evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, the point is moot, they were caught anyway.
I’m just having a bit of fun using the Counselor’s favored method of excruciatingly precise semantic distinction, hoist on his on retard, so to speak.