ITT: Gbaji rapidly flails from "They all called it an AK47 style weapon but it looks nothing like that!!!" to "Uh, But pictures on the internet are probably REALLY of AK47s" to "Those pictures of guns for sale by gun dealers are nothing like the guns that gun dealers sell!".
That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of my argument. It does look nothing like an AK47. Well, to anyone who's familiar with the weapons, which one would assume someone claiming to be "absolutely positive" should be in order to make the claim in the first place. I can only speculate as to what images you might be looking at which suggest otherwise, but if you're seeing an image of something that looks like an AK47, it likely is an image of an AK47, because... wait for it... the two weapons do not look alike. And guess what? At the same time those two statements are true, the statement that most of the SKS weapons you're likely to see for sale in a gun store are *not* going to have the after market "assault weapon" style modifications on them is also true. There's no "shifting argument" going on here. More like "multiple arguments", all of which support my position.
Here's a link to an online dealer's SKS listings
. There are far more of them that look like the classic hunting rifle style weapon than look like a more modern military style weapon. That's literally the only point I'm making here. I'm not at all, nor have I ever argued that it's impossible to buy an SKS with a pistol grip, folding stock, flare suppressor, etc. I am arguing that this is far less common than the standard version nowadays, especially in a gun shop.
And, just for irony's sake, the reason such modifications exist at all is because of the dumb "assault weapons ban" that was passed here in the US, because all the rifles that came with such design features by default were on the banned list, while the SKS was not. Smart third party gun manufacturers realized that they could buy crates of SKS's for cheap, remove the stock body, replace it with one that had the "military style" features, and then sell them to all the people who couldn't buy AR-15s and AK47 knock offs, but wanted something with that look. It was basically an "F---- You" to the ban, by showing that it was based on purely cosmetic changes.
Once the ban expired, now something like 15 years ago, the need to modify them more or less disappeared. So today, if you're buying an SKS and it has those features, it was most likely resold back to a store somewhere. Hence why it's not that common to find. Especially if you're just walking into a gun store and looking for a weapon to buy on short notice. For comparison, load up the AR-15 section on that same site I just linked. There's 26 pages of them, compared to one page of SKS.
To answer your question though, yes.
But like once, right?
Hilariously, the only one flipping out, losing their shit and writing multiple ten paragraph rants about it because they're just certain what the gun looked like (Pappy's Possum Plinker!) is you.
No. I'm certain that it did not look or sound like an AK-47. And I'm correct in that statement.
I admit that I only skimmed your conversation with Lolgaxe but I see you're whining about "News from anywhere" being taken out of context again. It's not, and you know it but here's the thread
yet again for anyone interested.
You mean where the very next sentence reads:
Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying.
Pretty clear I was saying that I'm not just going to some news source, taking them at face value, and repeating what they said.
You were making real factual errors about the negotiations, not differences of opinion. I asked you
where you were getting your news from that you kept getting basic factual things wrong and you famously responded.
Except we were not arguing about facts and figures Joph. That's the point. Well, you may have, but that's because *you* were trotting off to various sites and just quoting what they said. What I was doing was arguing about the intent and purpose of the negotiations. I was pointing out (correctly btw), that the numbers you kept quoting were themselves compromise figures. And I pointed out (again correctly) that this number kept decreasing in each round of negotiations.
I was talking about the process. You never seemed to get that though. My argument is not something that could be quoted from some source because it was my argument
. I get that for many here, it's assumed to be impossible to have an original thought and express it, and thus everything that is said must be sourced, but I don't work that way. I look at what happened, analyze it, and make an assessment as to what I think occurred that caused them to (in this case) change their proposed budget cuts from one figure, to another figure, to yet another figure over the course of several rounds of negotiations.
The core disagreement between us was not on the numbers along the way, but whether they arrived there are a result of negotiation and compromise (my argument) or the final number being what they really wanted all along (your argument). Let's recall that my argument was that compromising from 60B to 30B, with the 30B being entirely cuts from the GOP "side" was absurd, since they'd already arrived at that 60B number as a result of a previous compromise. They started wanting 100B, then compromised down to 60B, with each "side" agreeing to cut half of that from their own projects. The GOP showed up with 30B of cuts to stuff they wanted as their part of the agreement and the Dems just said "that's great. Let's just split the difference between the 60B you want and the 0B in cuts we want and just cut 30B. And look! You've already got a list of 30B in stuff that can be cut. Let's just cut that and call it a fair deal".
I was pointing out that this wasn't a fair deal. It was not ever about where I got my "news" from. We were both operating on the same set of facts. The difference is that I was looking at the pattern of change over time, while you were trying to just claim that the last round of numbers is all that mattered.
And honestly? This isn't really that important. It was an old argument. The real point is that obviously I do watch the news. Faced with that and a statement I made 6 years ago about "not getting my news from anywhere". a rational person should conclude that a literal interpretation of that statement must be incorrect, since it's so obviously contradicted by literally thousands of posts where I have directly referenced news sources in my posts. But lolgaxe choose to intentionally take the most absurd position and go with it.
Which is frankly just childish. I get that he's just trying to troll, but then what is the point? You all know that I'm more than willing to write walls of text in response, so it's not like it bothers me at all to repeatedly set the record straight. But in the same way that I think in terms of intent and process with things like budget negotiations, I also do so with posting style. And in this case it's a strange one. Not sure what he gets out of it, but he seems to keep doing it anyway. He knows that what he's posting is just BS, but he posts it anyway. Um... Ok. Whatever. I guess it's fine if he gets something out of it, but I'm going to respond to it each and every time and point out how silly he's being. Edited, Jun 22nd 2017 8:05pm by gbaji