Why do you automatically, and without good reason, classify it as irrational?
You're 2 constant criticisms are 1) "They're plastic" 2) "They're outdated." When you're asserting point 1, you suggest alternatives that are older designs than the Glock safe action. When you're asserting point 2, you suggest alternatives that are polymer guns.
I don't see any context in which those assertions are logical when presented in tandem. That, by definition, makes it irrational.


















































