Let’s go over this precise semantic distinction again:
The NRA had nothing to do with the lack of taggants in fireworks gunpowder.
“Maybe yes?” No. There’s no “maybe” about it. “No,” period.
I quite take your point, if the taggants were not there, it would be entirely impossible for them to be useful. Yes, clearly, you are on solid ground there.
I am not all that knowledgeable about taggant technology, I cannot state with authority that they would or would not have been useful. Hence, “maybe yes, maybe no”. I don’t know, and, with all due awe, I am not convinced you do either.
Now, perhaps the NRA only offered opposition to taggants in firearm gunpowder, and specifically exempted fireworks gunpowder. “Oh, yeah, sure, fireworks gunpowder should be tagged, yeah, we are totally on board with that!” Seems unlikely, but if you offer me a citation to that effect…
No, the NRA took no position on adding taggants to fireworks gunpowder. They didn’t oppose it. They didn’t care one way or the other.
Did they?
I am beginning to wonder if you understand that they two types of powder are different: fireworks powder is basically black powder, yes, but not mixed to the same proportions as gunpowder or sold in the same batches. It’s not like there’s one central font for all explosive powder. You do understand this, yes?
The NRA had zero, nothing, zip, nada, to do with whether or not taggants should ever be added to fireworks powder. They had no reason to care. They did nothing to stop it.
Did they?
We know for a fact that the NRA opposed adding taggants to regular black powder. And you tell me that they didn’t care at all, had no interest in such questions regarding fireworks powder. Their opposition to black powder regulation is a matter of record, as you yourself have noted. But we are given to believe that they would have simply smiled benignly and shrugged if it were a matter of fireworks powder? (Pretty sure that goes “Boom!” too. Recent evidence would indicate that. Though, admittedly, I lack the awesome expertise that you claim to have.)
Outside of your personal certainty that this is the case, have you any citation to offer? You seem perfectly willing to demand it of me, yet your hands appear to be as empty as mine own. And that means you win?
the NRA has never taken a position on tagging of high explosives. In fact, they explicitly have said they take no position on it. I don’t have a cite because it was in a print publication of theirs from 15 years ago. However, black powder is not a high explosive.
There is one source in this country I’m aware of for “black powder,” and that is Hodgdon. I used quotes because they don’t sell straight black powder, but Pyrodex. I don’t know if Hodgdon supplies fireworks manufacturers. So assuming the powder used by blackpowder/muzzleloading firearm enthusiasts all comes from Hodgdon, I want you to explain to me why tagging it would be useful.
and as for the “going boom” thing, black powder only “goes boom” when confined in a container which allows it to build up pressure and eventually burst the container. y’know, just like smokeless powder. I mean, does this look like an explosive to you?
If I say the NRA never took any position on it, how might I prove the lack of their taking any position, except by pointing out that they never took any such position?
No – it’s for the person making the claim to provide the proof. If you say something happened, and I say that something never happened, it’s for you to show the evidence that it did. It’s this situation that gives rise to the sometimes-misused phrase, “You can’t prove a negative.”
My cite is the Internet. Search it far and wide; you won’t find one report of the NRA taking any position on fireworks powder.
Your cite is the internet? Did you actually say that?
By the way, does anyone know what fireworks powder is made from? I’ve seen a couple of references to it being made from standard commercial black powder, but nothing so firm as to qualify as a cite. (I have some standards.) Does anyone have the google-fu to find something more substantial?
And while we’re about it, citing me and this thread in a GD context as if it were evidence of left wing bias on the Boards …totally cheap. Ought to be beneath you.
Work on that, why don’t you, there’s a good fellow.
The only thing you are discussing is purportedly what we are not discussing.
That’s the only response your demand for a cite deserves. You asked me to prove something DIDN’T happen.
Oh, you can just freak freely, any old way you like! I just think you might want to include “my cite is the internet” in your next collection of **Counselor’**s Greatest Hits. 'Cause that’s a beauty!
While I agree that “my cite is the internet” is not a particularly good argument, how would you suggest that he prove something didn’t happen?
By finding an NRA cite that gunpowder used in fireworks is excluded from their objection to taggants.
Wow, you really are hanging by a thread, aren’t you?
Hows about you give us a cite that the NRA opposed taggants in gunpowder used for fireworks. That’s the way a debate works. The OP made an assertion, that seems to be without merit. If you have a cite that gives it merit, let’s see it. If you have no cite, then have the courage to admit the OP was wrong.
If the Anti-Cancer League is publicly, forcefully, and even hysterically opposed to cancer, is it safe to assume they are also opposed to toenail cancer, or is that too much of a stretch? Do we need to present conclusive proof that they are also opposed to toenail cancer?
The NRA is on record as being opposed to tagging and registering gunpowder. Très duh! Are we to believe that they would have simply smiled benignly at an effort to tag and register gunpowder used for fireworks?
Would a Congressgit have made such an assumption? Would he have said to himself “No need to worry about the NRA being upset, this is fireworks gunpowder, which is totally different!” Or would she have expected to hear the good old “slippery slope” argument. First they come for your M-80’s, then they come for your guns!
Who would take such a chance in order to prevent miscreants from using anonymous fireworks gunpowder to commit a crime, since you could buy bulk gunpowder in a gun shop with ease? Now perhaps, if bulk gunpowder was tagged and registered, but fireworks were not, then it would make sense to anonymously buy fireworks and harvest the goodies. Assuming, of course, that commercially produced, tagged and registered gunpowder was not an ingredient in the fireworks.
I submit that the NRA’s insanely exaggerated opposition to any regulation and tagging of gunpowder is a matter of public record. I see no reason to assume that somehow they were totally cool with registering and tagging fireworks gunpowder because hey! that’s different! If anyone can show me some evidence of that, I will certainly listen.
Cue the crickets.
Hence, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the responsibility for barring tagging and registering fireworks gunpowder rests upon the NRA. And it is far more needful to provide evidence that contradicts the blazingly obvious than it is to provide evidence that supports it. In the absence of such evidence, a reasonable person is wholly justified in making a reasonable assumption.
I don’t care about the OP. But the notion that the NRA opposed taggants in fireworks, and what elucidator said are two different things, so trying to conflate them is disingenuous at best.
Since the NRA doesn’t make or enforce laws, you’re wrong about assuming the NRA is responsible for not having easily removable taggants added to the black powder used in fireworks.
The absence of evidence is yours. Your “reasonable assumption” seems to be based on your hatred of the NRA and not on any “blazingly obvious” facts. Adding taggants alters the burn rate of blackpowder. That creates an unsafe situation. Taggants can be removed from black powder. That makes the effort to add taggants a waste of time. The only people still calling for the adding of taggants is the company that makes taggants.
Sometimes. But we are also entitled to make inferences from known facts, if those inferences are not contradicted by known facts. This is a debate, not a court of law, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard.
Known fact: the NRA vociferously and resolutely opposes the addition of taggants to gunpowder.
Known fact: fireworks are made up of gunpowder and diverse ingredients, depending on the desired effect.
Inference: the NRA opposed the addition of taggants and registration for fireworks gunpowder, or would have had the question been broached. To suggest otherwise is contrary to their stated positions and actions. Such a suggestion *might * be valid, but that suggestion is the one that needs to be proven, since it is contrary to a reasonable inference based solidly on known fact.
If you have evidence that either of those known facts isn’t true, or can suggest why the reasonable inference that follows from those facts is contradicted by evidence, you are certainly welcome to present it. Have you?
Gosh, I guess I could carry my point if there were any evidence at all that the NRA has any power in terms of legislation. Boy, you got me there! I can’t think of a single instance where the clout of the NRA has proved to be decisive in legislation regarding guns and/or gunpowder!
These are statements of fact resting solely on the authority of you. With all due awe, cite(s)?
Do you need a drivers license or vehicle tags/license plates to drive your car on your property? The answer is, “No, you don’t”. You only need a drivers license and tags to drive on public roads. Different situations require different rules/regulations/laws. The NRA addressed the use of taggants in gunpowder. Not fireworks.
If the question had been broached??? :smack:
Suggestion might be valid??? :smack:
Blah, blah, blah. 
Your “reasonable inference” is only based on cherry-picked facts that do not describe the whole situation. Your strawman is wearing a red herring bone suit. What, if any, treatments do you apply to your fingernails that makes them so resilient? :rolleyes:
And the common ingredient in fireworks is cottage cheese?
Unless there is a dramatic improvement in your postings, I will not be addressing them. Not because I’m rude, I am, yes, but because you are too stubborn to argue with and too stupid to educate.