Hey, SKS Owners! Has Cheaper Than Dirt made you a criminal?

Better living through chemistry! Equanil! Valium!

As in Kool It. Some good points have been made here, whether or not CTD is involved. The main issue, however, is "legal purchase, illegal installation".

Who said what to whom doesn't matter, and we don't need to get into "Who flung dung?".

Harumph.

:), Art
 
Gentlepersons (notice PC Terminalogy?)

Adult discussion/debate, as is TFL norm, on this will be tolerated... flames, attacks, etc will not. Lets keep this civil, K?

We have a few members in this discussion that are quite active within firearms community. While some may not agree with their style/opinions remember....

We are all on the same side

Every Member of TFL has experiences/knowledge that other Members may not... we can all learn.
 
BadgerArms stated in his post that a supressor could me machined with the barrel and that as a part of the actual barrel itself would be legal. What about a barrel extension that is welded on that looks like a suppressor? How do you know if a few slot-cuts in the extension reduces flash? I'm asking particularly about the 5.5" extensions that look like supressors for the 11.5" AR barrels. What gives? Never can get a straight answer from the BATboys.
 
Heard from Cheaper Than Dirt…

Cheaper Than Dirt has offered a response of sorts… I don't understand it, but it's here.

And in reply to "Gewehr98," the Internet is a big place, and we're a tiny crew with real lives… we address what we can as we become aware of it.

• Dean, jus' visitin' from The Gun Zone…
 
What G98 said. Both times. As one with a reasonable command of the language, it is fairly obvious when encountering gratuitously insulting verbiage: "Forgive me for being concerned" is just one example. As one who daily deals with the repercussions of words, LIP, you must know that you are being deliberately insulting in this thread, yet you choose to do so.

Anyway, on to the letter. I find this excerpt interesting, especially:
By advertising a muzzle brake which will also act as a flash suppressor, you are selling a product that, when installed, turns a legal SKS rifle into an illegal rifle. I notice that you are giving pure opinion here, but stating it as fact. You could- and should- have correctly stated in my opinion, or it would appear. You did not. As has been stated elsewhere, there are BATF- approved muzzle brakes on the market that also reduce or eliminate muzzle flash, and this is irregardless of the fact that all of these laws appear to be infringements of firearms ownership, and ipso facto unConstitutional, and therefore, at odds with the laws upon which our society is theoretically based.
 
By advertising a muzzle brake which will also act as a flash suppressor, you are selling a product that, when installed, turns a legal SKS rifle into an illegal rifle. I notice that you are giving pure opinion here…
Click to expand...
Hey!, Spectre, say A, now say B, as in the basis of that opinion, the ATF Technical Branch.

The matter has, with the assistance of CTD, been successfully concluded, and this is now a non-issue. You may refer to the original page for further details.
 
Spectre, my letter to CTD was presentation of the facts as I understand them to be, including citations to authority where applicable, with a suggestion to discuss the issues I raised with their own counsel. You can call that an opinion if you like. It makes no substantive difference. (Incidentally, it also does it make the tone of the letter condescending in any way.) Stating it as "my opinion" is surplusage. The intended recipient of the e-mail certainly understood that it was from an attorney who had reached a conclusion.

As for your comment that I use "gratuitously insulting verbiage," you state that as a fact, but I'll take that as your opinion (to which you are certainly entitled). Not that I agree with it. [Doubtless some here will consider this entire reply "insulting" or an "ad hominem" simply for daring to respond again here, despite the fact that in neither intent nor execution have I insulted anybody.]

It was never my intent to be insulting. However, I took comments made about me (by name) to be gratuitous and insulting. Yet I tried to respond to the comments directly, though I did observe that I couldn't understand the motivation for the insults other than somebody having a chip on their shoulder. By that I meant somebody simply spoiling for a fight, as I saw nothing constructive or genuine about the suggestion as to what to do with my "energies." If my surmise about Gew98's motive was wrong, then I'll stand corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top