Yeah, you did:
So make up your mind...
ROFL apparently you can't tell the difference between a general statement and a specific request. Here's a hint: I never said that had to prove anything to me.
Right. So when your argument fails, just make sh!t up and put words in people mouths so you have even more to argue about? You are now telling me what I know and don't know? Just stick to the facts, if you can... mmkay? I never said that I knew, thought, believed, suspected or otherside felt these were illegal.
If you don't want people to put words in your mouth, don't put words in theirs and make it clear what your opinion is. You're just making completely ambiguous statements, claiming not to have any opinion either way yet you seem to be arguing this so strongly that it's almost as if you had a personal financial interest in the whole thing.
Since you've now flip-flopped and contradicted yourself... saying that Lockhart doesn't have to prove anything, then why are you still going on and on (and on and on) about this?
First I haven't flip-flopped at all and I keep going because you keep misinterpreting what I actually said in order to dismiss my argument that Lockhart would be better off presenting actual evidence of what they claim instead of just telling people to trust them.
If you're so convinced these are illegal, then how about you prove it? Like I said... put up or shut up.
I never said they were illegal. Again your comprehension skills are lacking.
That is all your doing; "These are illegal! Everyone's gonna get arrested!! Waahh!!".
Again, making #### up and completely misrepresenting what I actually said.
Where is this doubt you speak of? We just saw 4 different group orders, from across the country, dozens of CGN'ers buying hundreds of these things. It seems the only one with a doubt here is you.
...and yet doubt has been posted in this and every other thread that has discussed this, from the first time it came up all the way to today. You're obviously not a fan of reality and honesty but to claim I'm the only one who has pointed out the ambiguous legal status of these devices is just moronic, considering everybody else can see those posts, including in this very thread. The one thing I'm the only one to have done is propose to Lockhart a way to actually remove all of those doubts and put the matter to rest once and for all. And you're the only one who been so adamant that doubt shouldn't be removed at all. Please tell us, why is it that you think removing all doubts as to the legality of these devices is a bad thing?
Like I said (twice), don't buy them then. I'm sure Lockhart will survive without your business. I'm sure they could also do without all your pointless and paranoid #####ing and moaning as well...
Like I said, (twice), this isn't about me buying them or not. You can keep making the same stupid, pointless, irrelevant arguments but they won't suddenly become relevant. So tell us, what IS your personal stake in this? You seem particularly interested in Lockhart's business, are you involved in it? Are they aware that you're argumenting on their behalf?
Yeah yeah yeah... your mom told you that everyone's got a right to an opinion. Whatever...
So, what is your interest in trying to suppress my suggestion? You still haven't answered that. What is your motivation? Why do you feel the need to lie about what I say?
Again, I didn't, your grade school comprehension level notwithstanding.
So, basically you're accusing Lockhart of misrepresenting their product (without any proof)
I've posted clear proof that they do.
and further saying that as a result, everyone who purchased these is a moron because they bought into the false advertising.
That's your own misinterpretation of what I said based on the fact that it applies to you.
At least stand by your comments, FFS.
I completely stand by my comments. I do not stand by your completely moronic misinterpretation of them.
This constant back-peddling is just silly. And for the record, I didn't buy any of these, so trying to call me a moron with your "shoe" analogy is just another fail.
So, again, what IS your interest in this then? The constant misinterpretation, lies and tirades indicate a much stronger interest than what you've admitted. What else are you hiding from us?
OMG... they called them "flash bang grenades"...?! You mean to say they aren't? Do you have proof of this?
Jesus Christ, try to keep up will you?
from
this very thread:
lockharttactical said:
Typical flash bangs require a DETONATOR FUSE or such. This is an EXPLOSIVE part. Something Civilians CANNOT have in their possession without proper explosive licensing.
The simple fact is, long before you came along with this... well, whatever this tirade of yours is about, people asked about this and Lockhart already stated they are training aids. But you're missing the point, again. The people on here aren't acting on behalf of police services, buying these for their tac teams to use on raids. The people on here buying them are civilians, so the training aid aspect of these does not apply. People are buying these for bear defence, or just for fun. Do they need training devices to practice for bear attacks, or fun, then 'real' devices for 'real' bear attacks, or when the 'real' fun begins? Seriously... how about making some sense? Or even better, just drop it already.
...and you're missing my point, again, unsurprisingly. The point is that they are less than forthwith about the real nature of that product, as I've already said and proven at least twice already. When you publish a specific product spec that says one thing but privately tell people that challenge it something else, never updating the spec that's publicly available, that's being dishonest. Considering that dishonesty, I think that just taking their word that these do not fall under the definitions of Explosives under the Explosives Act is not only moronic but a deliberate attempt at avoiding the law.
All I've done is point out that there is an easy way that they could be ACTUALLY forthwith about the legal nature of those products and get an official statement from the only people whose opinion count and dispel any and all doubts. I hope they're working on that and dispel all doubts and keep that product on the market. Now for some reason, reason that you choose to keep secret, you seem to absolutely not want them to dispel those doubts and to keep the legal nature of that product ambiguous. Unless you know for a fact that those would be determined to be explosives and you have a personal stake in that determination, why would you want that?
You think these might be illegal. You think Lockhart misrepresented them. We got it. Do you need to go about any further?
Do you need to keep misrepresenting what I say? Do you need to keep making straw men arguments? Do you need to keep why this is so important to you that you would go to these lengths secret?
