Of course they do... but we don't have to let one person try to defend on only his own shallow pocket, now do we? Collective shallow pockets... just like the current suit...
Then what does ARSA have to do with a fundamental right and principle... oh, that's right... you are still in counter-attack mode on ARSA... I keep forgetting...
as a "put your money where your mouth is" move. If this notion of ignoring
Which class? What methods?
Well, gee... they haven't exactly told me I can use the toilet either... I better get a cork. (And that -com- mode of shipment *really* stinks...)
I don't know, why don't you find out and come and tell us.
There you go... "...has to..." is that truth or fiction?
Trying to put words in my mouth? "You mean,..." What TRA/NAR does not allow does not mean that all else is illegal.
Others do. Every day.
You know, most folks I know define "legal" as something that complies with governmental regs... not org regs... but to each his own.
And you've just answered your own question, Bob. Because Jerry has a LEMP. I guess he doesn't need it while he sneers and thumbs his nose at the BATF. But as soon as they come askin'... "But of course, I have a LEMP. I don't need it, but I have it anyway."
You are changing direction... again. Always convenient for someone who crops all conversational background that would necessarily pinpoint his bad/changing logic/direction.
NAR/TRA/ARSA/IEAS/(whoever else) regs do not equal governmental regs... never have, never will. Some may overlap, some may not.
These have no bearing whatsoever on orgs choosing to test, or not to test, motors of their own accord for any reason. There is no law whatsoever that forces an org to test motors. It appears to me that your argument persistently tries to characterize what the orgs do as required by the law.
WRT motor manufacture, shipment, and certification processes, by your definition and posts, one might perceive that you think what Jerry is doing is illegal, and what TRA and NAR requires is required by law.
Sincere Question(s):
Exactly what are you protecting? Give it to me straight Ray, I am an honest and open listener. I have no other motives than to know the truth. I often sit on sidelines for months before opening my mouth (or fingers). In absence of information, I ask questions. I have done so. I ask you now:
Many people post information on why NAR, and more abundantly so, TRA, are off-track in form of actual citations and photo reproductions, with spelled out reasons that become more and more clear the longer one cares to sift out the actual truth, and set aside all the back-biting, and turf coverage. No rebuttalist (such as yourself) seems to do this... why is that? If Jerry (and others) are only pounding a grudge match, how is it that you would not be able to produce evidence to the contrary? Am I to believe that those who disagree with you are just very artfully misguiding the public, in a way that apparently cannot be defended (or at least not very well)? If so, then please tell me why.(?)
~ Duane Phillips.
P.S. If you choose to reply to this post, I ask you to please not crop/snip/or otherwise remove anything from it. To do otherwise (at least on this post) would lead me to believe that you want to obfuscate the direction and integrity of my questions.
Okay, so how do you propose we go about doing that? If there are people that feel that strongly about this, then I recommend THEY take the bull by the horns, take it to the woodshed, and take care of business. DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE! DON'T CRY IN YOUR BEER AND COMPLAIN HERE, IT DOES NO GOOD HERE.
You changed what it really says... here is the quote from the orange book...
if the black powder is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16)
THIS exemption is for the recreational use of antique firearms. YOU put the extra extra comma and OR in it.
> if the black powder is intended to be used solely for sporting,
1a. if the black powder is intended to be used solely for i. sporting, [or] ii. recreational, OR iii. cultural purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(16)
Therefore, with all due respect rockets ARE recreational thus black powder is also exempt from the code for purposes relevent to "sport rocketry" Sport, ie, recreation.
You are most welcome!
There are legal books focused on parsing in particular that reinforce this (I do not have a link or a scan, to spoon feed you like a baby, yet).
Then there are books on English language and grammar which also demonstrate that if an OR is used, with a series of commas the OR applies to each term with commas.
Last time I looked in a "Guns & Ammo" or "Shooting Times", it appears that there is a significant subgroup of gun enthusiasts who are into hunting and target-shooting with old-style muzzleloading guns - ramrods, percussion caps, & all. Apparently the appeal is the "enhanced user interaction experience" (compared to just sticking in a cartridge) - I guess it's like the "reloadable vs. SU motors" trip...
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.