Anyone been following along? I guess I missed the start of it all ???
I can't stand Yankee's videos. He just curses unnecessarily because he thinks it makes the videos sound better or something. Definitely a man in love with his own voice.
I've only recently started watching a lot of IraqVeteran8888's videos... I like the guy, he truly enjoys what he's doing, or at least it appears so.
Yankee is an ass.
I miss tnoutdoors9 though, didn't realize how much I liked his videos until he was gone (hopefully not for good).
I'm never gonna care much for anybody that pushes their own opinion as much as Yankee does... I like YouTube videos to be at least somewhat based in fact and science.
Quote from: Ridgerunner665 on October 23 2017 07:04:13 PM MDT
I've only recently started watching a lot of IraqVeteran8888's videos... I like the guy, he truly enjoys what he's doing, or at least it appears so.
Yankee is an ass.
I miss tnoutdoors9 though, didn't realize how much I liked his videos until he was gone (hopefully not for good).
I'm never gonna care much for anybody that pushes their own opinion as much as Yankee does... I like YouTube videos to be at least somewhat based in fact and science.
Kind of enjoyed Yankee for a while but tuned him out a while back. Don't know exactly what the feud is about but my feelings match RR.
Glad to see I'm not alone on the Yankee subject.
I think it stems from different stances on the NRA bump-stock comments and support. Then it turned into an ethical thing about money and who is on the take. It seems Yankee spewed the dope on how 8888's vidoes get done, amount of money and ethics of them. It was $4,000 a video to whatever MFG wanted one done :)
Quote from: Intercooler on October 24 2017 02:03:19 AM MDTIt seems Yankee spewed the dope on how 8888's vidoes get done, amount of money and ethics of them. It was $4,000 a video to whatever MFG wanted one done :)
They did that Taurus review, and just saw a bunch of "$4,000" comments. [emoji23]
Funny thing to have it come up with iraqveteran8888, as you'd think some other channels would be discussed before, but I actually agree with YankeeMarshal. The response video that Eric and Chad put out really didn't answer what the original statement was. I asked it in their comments, never was touched on... if you are saying something was taken out of context, put it in context for us. Very simple idea. Personally, I don't think there is a way that statement can come out as positive for the 2nd Amendment, from two guys that are "No Compromise" and allude to "Not One Inch."
The money thing actually has been alluded to for years by nutnfancy, so it doesn't shock me. Seeing the price and stipulations that iraqveteran8888 was setting did shock me (and that was when he was smaller, and a few years old, so I'm sure they are higher now). Personally, it made them come off so greedy... and that is from someone who has purchased ManCans from them because they used to act like they barely can make ends meet, that I unsubscribed. YankeeMarshal... I'm still subscribed to, as I do like different thought processes, as well as revolvers. But one thing to point out, YankeeMarshal isn't telling people to not give iraqveteran8888 the time of day. In some of his videos, he even stated to support them via Patreon if you want to. He is just calling out their stance on the stupid chat that Tim from MAC was the main defense of the 2nd Amendment.
That chat really showed how many people are getting paid from the NRA. You saw MAC supporting the NRA prior to that statement regarding the bump stocks... but in videos after, he doesn't tell people to join anymore. I respect that, and even though I'm a life member, I won't give them another dollar until Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox are out (disgusting, but will never happen). For Eric to call YankeeMarshal as the one dividing the gun community (in reality, YouTube isn't the gun community)... why not point the finger at the NRA for tossing our rights to the people against the 2nd Amendment? And for his calls for unity within his respond video, I really doubt his stance is one that I'd want to support.
Subscribers/supporters of iraqveteran8888 can say what they want, but I was one of them prior to all this. What has been shown thus far really had me clean up my subscription list on YouTube. I haven't watched many of Eric's videos lately, but refuse to until there is some statement that explains the chat issue (something that likely will not happen).
I am not deep in the weeds on any of this stuff. After all... It's You Tube. But in the real world everybody is on the take. Call it a job, a business, or simply a way to turn work into money. The plumber is on the take. So is the cop. The money has to come from somewhere. If Eric and Chad have a good moneymaking formula.... good for them. They produce a fine product and people are willing to pay for it. How anyone can look down on them for that is beyond me. Love them or hate them but it is their business to run their way. There just might be a lot of jealous content providers that dream of having what Chad and Eric have built.
I like IV8888's videos, and I generally don't like the Yankee Marshall. His attacks on my beloved 10mm as a personal defense round are just the beginning of my dislike.
That said.....
Yankee Marshall is not wrong that the NRA does not use my money effectively to fight for my gun rights. The SAF has done far more to secure those rights by establishing case law about the second amendment. Not that such case law can't be over-turned, but it is far less susceptible to the current "mood".
I am an NRA member, and probably always will be. I find their training curriculum to be very good, and I am an NRA certified instructor. I don't have a problem with the NRA paying youtuber's to produce gun content, and I kinda think anyone who thinks the big youtube channels are put up out of altruism are misguided. Those guys are finding ways to monetize what they like.
I do the same, just not to the same extent. I spent this past Saturday getting my final classes in to become a Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor in my state. I should have my official instructor number back by end of week. I don't plan to teach a ton of students, but if I can make a couple $K a year talking about guns that will be nice. Gonna talk about them anyway most likely :P
While I don't doubt the feud is to some degree real, I also don't discount that it is probably being blown up a little by one or both parties to draw in viewers.
Iraqvet8888 charges for videos? I never knew that. Now I can't trust anything he says.
.
Yea. In their is a blurb about if the pistol or thing being tested doesn't make it, they have to send replacements to complete the video.
I always take most of the videos with a grain of salt. You know if MFG's are sending a piece to a big review channel it will be the cream of the crop piece!
The meat and taters start at about 3:45
Yankee Marshal is a tool!
I couldnt care less about his bloviating opinion on any topic.
His whole schtick is about being a contentious, antagonistic, bellicose, contrary knucklehead.
So IV8888 takes $ for content. BIG SHOCK :o..... News flash: Just in: Water is wet!
If you only want firearm or ammunition content on YouTube that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs... There isn't any.
Andrew has been saying that here and on his own and other channels for years.
Hell yea I'll still watch IV8888 if he (they) have a video on a topic that interests me; and I'll continue to give YM's opinion on bump stocks, NRA, religion, transgender rights, Coke vs. Pepsi, self protection side arm choices or the Holy Trinity the weight it deserves.....Exactly what you pay for it.
People gotta make a living...I don't do shit for free either.
I hope he (IR8888) makes himself independently wealthy doing videos, they're very well done, entertaining, informative, and interesting videos... He should get something for his efforts.
Remember the old saying, you get what you pay for...
YouTube has evolved, its no longer just videos on the internet... It is very much a TV channel of its own.
There are exceptions, but the rule is gonna be those guys getting paid to do what they do.
James Yeager just got the tires too.
I believe YM's problem with IV8888 is that he believes that Matt and Chad are more part of the firearms industry vs fire arm activist they have tried portraying themselves as with the whole "not one inch" talk. YM has also stated that he doesn't believe that the NRA with LaPierre is actually interested in fighting for the 2A as much as it's concerned with keeping a crisis going to make money off of. YM also took exception to he and other "non-NRA" fans(though he is a member of the NRA) being banned during the Gun Collective round table. He also pointed out that the owner of Rand CLP said something to the effect of "he didn't care about the ban as long as it didn't effect his bottom line".
It seems YM's believes that Matt is refusing to call out members of the industry because he is making money from them and has stated that he is fine with that. In fact he said he hopes Matt makes a lot of money from them, just don't accuse those who do call them of "dividing" the gun community.
EDIT: Sorry, meant Eric and Chad. I work nights, so this morning was the end of a very long day.
Quote from: SavageOne on October 25 2017 02:51:27 AM MDT
... YM has also stated that he doesn't believe that the NRA with LaPierre is actually interested in fighting for the 2A as much as it's concerned with keeping a crisis going to make money off of. ...
I believe the same thing. I do not think everyone in upper management behaves that way, but I think a large majority does. This claim was made back in the mid-1990's when there was a split between the Neal Knox supporters and the "Mo-Money" crowd. Unfortunately, the Mo-Money crowd won. Back then a large number of NRA staff didn't even belong to the NRA. They also gave lucrative contracts (mailing, printing, etc) to companies that were owned by supporters of anti-gun legislation. Companies that were owned by NRA member and who offered to do the work for 1/3 the cost were turned down.
.
Personally speaking, I "like" Eric and his crew at iraqvet8888 and dislike YM & JY. I am subscribed to IV88 and NOT the other two bums.
Never saw eye to eye with YM liberal slant.
JY is too full of himself, talk about someone who likes the sound of his own voice.. I wonder if he dont have a mirror beside the camera so he can watch himself!!
CW
He has two. That way he can watch himself watching himself. And he films it so he can watch himself watching himself watch himself. :P
While I respect everyone's opinion on the YM, may I point out that regardless of his political slant, he is 100% Second Amendment. He has stated that "shall not be infringed" means just that. I am not saying that Eric and Chad are not Pro 2A, as well, but I know of at least two instances where Chad has implied that negotiation over the bump stock might be worth it. He has since back stepped a bit and said he is against the ban, but his initial stance was a bit to Fuddy for me. Let's not fool ourselves, Eric and Chad are tied to the Industry side of this, IV8888 makes a lot of money off of it(and I say "good for him"). He has the second largest YouTube gun channel and until getting put on the spot appeared, somewhat, squishy on his opposition to the ban. He chided those who were expressing legitimate frustration and anger with the NRA and seemed to be attempting damage control over LaPierre's and Cox's initial stances.
Bottom-line for me is when it comes down to two sides(even when I like the individuals on both sides), one that has unequivocal support for the 2A and one that seems willing to budge, I will pick unequivocal every time. There is no margin for error in this fight.
Quote from: Intercooler on October 25 2017 02:21:14 AM MDT
James Yeager just got the tires too.
First... thank you for the link. Second.... I am frustrated because this is just not the place to say what I am thinking of YM. This is a good forum and worthy of mature standards. So... no matter how much I think YM is full of "soup" (my grandmothers word), I just need to keep my mind on 10mm guns and cartridges. Some days I hate being grown up.
Yeah...Except not budging may be the error in the fight. Winning the war is about picking your fights.
I would gladly give up bump stocks for an open registry. Think about that. No more open market bump stocks, which were $150, but the ability to buy brand new NFA machine guns. Back in the day a full auto AR-15 was the same price as the semi-auto version. Just pay the tax ($200) and deal with the hassle of an NFA gun, which most buyers elected not to.
Is this 100% 2A? Nope. But it is MORE 2A than we currently have.
Same goes for UBC's and reciprocity. More gun owners are negatively impacted by lack of reciprocity than are impacted by lack of UBC. I buy guns somewhat regularly without a background check. Both my Glocks were private party sales. Would a properly masked background check been a bit of a hassle? Yes. But no less so than having to stop in Hannibal MO everytime I visit family in Indiana cause I have to stow my gun in the trunk before I enter Illinois. despite the fact that I managed to not commit any felonies in the 5 other states I drove thru.
The comments I have seen from guys like Chad or Eric have generally been in favor of compromises that would gain us ground in the fight.
Absolutists tend to lose it all.
Exactly!
So you would trade bump stocks for new NFA guns, a $300 everyman's option for a multi thousand dollar rich man option. OK. You would give up UBC, which has shown no true discouragement to crime, for reciprocity, which was making it's way through Congress on it's own before LV. OK. What will you give up for "assault weapons"? What will you give up for magazine restrictions? Come on once you start dealing everything is on the table. There are no sacred cows once compromise has been started.
Let's see, what did we get for the 34' NFA? Oh that's right, nothing(well except restrictions). What did we get in return for the GCA of 68', let's see... more restrictions. The AWB of 94' got us...restrictions, but hey at least the only made it for 10 years right, compared to the others that is progress. So, what can we get out of restricting a, by the law, legal accessory? I mean let's be honest once we make a deal, it's not like the Antis will come back wanting more or challenge the deal in court(of course they will only say their side of the deal was illegal and the bump stocks will remain restricted).
We are starting off at a deficit and I don't believe that giving more up will help dig us out of this hole.
Are you willing to give up bump stocks, because you see no purpose in them? Because there hunters who see no need for handguns other than revolvers and no need for ARs(which are not as good as bolt guns...right). I mean a revolver and bolt action are still firearms, so the "heart" of the 2nd is preserved and the Antis promise that they won't come after those.. as long as you keep them in your house...in a safe...with a trigger lock...with the key kept at your local police dept... and give a good reason to check it out.
Death by a thousand cuts, is still death. I would rather stand strong and fight, always forward never back.
What you say is pretty much true... But I prefer to pick fights I can win.
Trying to save bump devices after LV is a losing battle, it'll burn up a lot of time and money that could be better spent on something truly useful.
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 24 2017 08:18:59 PM MDT
If you only want firearm or ammunition content online that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs... There isn't any.
Hey now...you're on the ONLY firearms content online that's free on any kind of paid content.
We are owned by nobody. Our reviews are real and come from real experience. We'll never take a penny from any company to push a product. And believe me, there has been a ton of offers from some big companies.
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 25 2017 04:25:22 PM MDT...
The comments I have seen from guys like Chad or Eric have generally been in favor of compromises that would gain us ground in the fight.
...
OK, so was Eric pandering to me with the "not one inch" sign he wrote while addressing this, or was he pandering to you when he made the compromise offers? See that's the problem you can't ride two horses with one ass. That's what YM was calling him out on.
Quote from: Patriot on October 25 2017 07:45:28 PM MDT
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 24 2017 08:18:59 PM MDT
If you only want firearm or ammunition content online that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs... There isn't any.
Hey now...you're on the ONLY firearms content online that's free on any kind of paid content.
We are owned by nobody. Our reviews are real and come from real experience. We'll never take a penny from any company to push a product. And believe me, there has been a ton of offers from some big companies.
You're right, poor word selection. My intention was to reference YouTube content.
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 25 2017 08:19:51 PM MDT
Quote from: Patriot on October 25 2017 07:45:28 PM MDT
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 24 2017 08:18:59 PM MDT
If you only want firearm or ammunition content online that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs... There isn't any.
Hey now...you're on the ONLY firearms content online that's free on any kind of paid content.
We are owned by nobody. Our reviews are real and come from real experience. We'll never take a penny from any company to push a product. And believe me, there has been a ton of offers from some big companies.
You're right, poor word selection. My intention was to reference YouTube content.
What about TNOutdoors 9 and Shooingthebull? They don't seem to advertise.
.
Hickok 45 has sponsors, but he doesn't review items from them.
Quote from: SavageOne on October 25 2017 05:06:04 PM MDT
So you would trade bump stocks for new NFA guns, a $300 everyman's option for a multi thousand dollar rich man option. OK. You would give up UBC, which has shown no true discouragement to crime, for reciprocity, which was making it's way through Congress on it's own before LV. OK. What will you give up for "assault weapons"? What will you give up for magazine restrictions? Come on once you start dealing everything is on the table. There are no sacred cows once compromise has been started.
Let's see, what did we get for the 34' NFA? Oh that's right, nothing(well except restrictions). What did we get in return for the GCA of 68', let's see... more restrictions. The AWB of 94' got us...restrictions, but hey at least the only made it for 10 years right, compared to the others that is progress. So, what can we get out of restricting a, by the law, legal accessory? I mean let's be honest once we make a deal, it's not like the Antis will come back wanting more or challenge the deal in court(of course they will only say their side of the deal was illegal and the bump stocks will remain restricted).
We are starting off at a deficit and I don't believe that giving more up will help dig us out of this hole.
Are you willing to give up bump stocks, because you see no purpose in them? Because there hunters who see no need for handguns other than revolvers and no need for ARs(which are not as good as bolt guns...right). I mean a revolver and bolt action are still firearms, so the "heart" of the 2nd is preserved and the Antis promise that they won't come after those.. as long as you keep them in your house...in a safe...with a trigger lock...with the key kept at your local police dept... and give a good reason to check it out.
Death by a thousand cuts, is still death. I would rather stand strong and fight, always forward never back.
Did you really read my post?
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 25 2017 04:25:22 PM MDT
Back in the day a full auto AR-15 was the same price as the semi-auto version. Just pay the tax ($200) and deal with the hassle of an NFA gun, which most buyers elected not to.
In other words, trade a temperamental facsimile for the real thing and pay only $50 more. Doesn't sound to me like a multi-thousand dollar rich mans option. That is how it was in 1982. If you wanted full-auto, just order it that way, fill out the form, pay your $200 tax and when your stamp came in, get your gun.
And, you are right, our great grandfathers rolled over on the NFA and rolled again in the GCA. But the times have changed specifically because of those restrictions. They now come wanting something relatively inconsequential, and we don't point to something they have and say "trade?"
Sorry, a guy shows up on my doorstep and says he will trade me his full-auto AR for my bump fire stock and $50, and I am all in.
Edit - I would further add that the legislation would have to be very, very carefully worded and narrowly crafted to only apply to a bump fire stock, not the generic "rate increasing devices" BS they currently have authored.
I am not saying throw caution to the wind. But we have given up a bunch of stuff. Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.
Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.
[/quote]
The only problem with that is, both horses in this trade belong to us. They're just agreeing to not shoot one of the horses in the head if we'll give it to them.
This isn't horse trading, this is school yard bullying.
Again, I don't disagree philosophically that they should not have our horse.
But, as legally interpreted, the horse is theirs. And the courts are NOT going to over-turn the 34 NFA, as they should have in Miller.
Further, they are not going to apply the jurisprudence of Miller to modern firearms, as that reading indicates that the 2A specifically protects assault rifles (selective fire) and standard capacity magazines.
If we choose to ignore the reality of our existence in favor of some philosophical ideal, we also loose.
Do I agree it is our horse? Yes. But, the sheriff is recognizing their claim. And I want the horse back, so I better be prepared to negotiate. Or live without the horse.
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 26 2017 07:49:54 AM MDT
Quote from: SavageOne on October 25 2017 05:06:04 PM MDT
So you would trade bump stocks for new NFA guns, a $300 everyman's option for a multi thousand dollar rich man option. OK. You would give up UBC, which has shown no true discouragement to crime, for reciprocity, which was making it's way through Congress on it's own before LV. OK. What will you give up for "assault weapons"? What will you give up for magazine restrictions? Come on once you start dealing everything is on the table. There are no sacred cows once compromise has been started.
Let's see, what did we get for the 34' NFA? Oh that's right, nothing(well except restrictions). What did we get in return for the GCA of 68', let's see... more restrictions. The AWB of 94' got us...restrictions, but hey at least the only made it for 10 years right, compared to the others that is progress. So, what can we get out of restricting a, by the law, legal accessory? I mean let's be honest once we make a deal, it's not like the Antis will come back wanting more or challenge the deal in court(of course they will only say their side of the deal was illegal and the bump stocks will remain restricted).
We are starting off at a deficit and I don't believe that giving more up will help dig us out of this hole.
Are you willing to give up bump stocks, because you see no purpose in them? Because there hunters who see no need for handguns other than revolvers and no need for ARs(which are not as good as bolt guns...right). I mean a revolver and bolt action are still firearms, so the "heart" of the 2nd is preserved and the Antis promise that they won't come after those.. as long as you keep them in your house...in a safe...with a trigger lock...with the key kept at your local police dept... and give a good reason to check it out.
Death by a thousand cuts, is still death. I would rather stand strong and fight, always forward never back.
Did you really read my post?
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 25 2017 04:25:22 PM MDT
Back in the day a full auto AR-15 was the same price as the semi-auto version. Just pay the tax ($200) and deal with the hassle of an NFA gun, which most buyers elected not to.
In other words, trade a temperamental facsimile for the real thing and pay only $50 more. Doesn't sound to me like a multi-thousand dollar rich mans option. That is how it was in 1982. If you wanted full-auto, just order it that way, fill out the form, pay your $200 tax and when your stamp came in, get your gun.
And, you are right, our great grandfathers rolled over on the NFA and rolled again in the GCA. But the times have changed specifically because of those restrictions. They now come wanting something relatively inconsequential, and we don't point to something they have and say "trade?"
Sorry, a guy shows up on my doorstep and says he will trade me his full-auto AR for my bump fire stock and $50, and I am all in.
Edit - I would further add that the legislation would have to be very, very carefully worded and narrowly crafted to only apply to a bump fire stock, not the generic "rate increasing devices" BS they currently have authored.
I am not saying throw caution to the wind. But we have given up a bunch of stuff. Which means going forward there is no reason not to horse trade if we come out on top.
So, you believe that the Antis would ever agree for a 1 to 1 swap of an accessory for allowing all modern automatic firearms to be available to the general public? You further seem to believe that market forces would then bring down price of said automatics from 10's of thousand to, conceivably, 100's of dollars. I must, respectfully, say I believe that to be a pipe dream. Even if you could get Antis on board, the very least I could see them demanding is that we up the NFA permit fee from it's 1934 price to a price adjusted for inflation(which I am surprised they haven't done already), which would be around $3600-3700. Would you make that deal?
Let me be very clear, I don't believe that the Antis are dealing in good conscience. Their goal is not compromise, it's elimination. Any dealings with them, without this key fact in the forefront of your mind, is foolhardy.
Nobody does it better than Hickok45. IraqiVeteran8888 is up there and sootch00. IMHO
Yep. When the "Yankee Marshal" threw ole Hickok 45 into his mix of badmouthing other Youtubers, I completely tuned him out. Nobody badmouth's Hickok!
Okay, to be honest, I had tuned him out before this comment. Something about his negative comments toward 10mm and the Glock 29.
Quote from: pacapcop on October 26 2017 03:22:51 PM MDT
Nobody does it better than Hickok45. IraqiVeteran8888 is up there and sootch00. IMHO
Does what? Paid reviews? Paid promotions? If that's what you mean, then I would agree. Hickok45 and IV8888 are the two biggest gun channels on YouTube and what they do is appealing to a large segment of people. But, they are PAID for what they do, by the people who make money off the products they show and that's fine. But, because they receive compensation for their views, those views should be taken with a grain of salt.
I am gonna try this one last time, without examples since I keep offering them as a general attempt to outline and they keep getting attacked like straw men.
The courts have already shown they won't guarantee our rights as they should. We have to negotiate for them.
Given that reality, I will accept bargains in which provides a net increase of recognition of my rights.
There is good news. The anti-gun groups irrationally fear guns. Irrational fears lead to irrational decisions. And, they are motivated to deal in the wake of these kinds of tragedies. We are doing ourselves a dis-service by not smartly negotiating when our opponents are both irrational and emotional.
Quote from: 4949shooter on October 26 2017 03:27:28 PM MDT
Yep. When the "Yankee Marshal" threw ole Hickok 45 into his mix of badmouthing other Youtubers, I completely tuned him out. Nobody badmouth's Hickok!
Okay, to be honest, I had tuned him out before this comment. Something about his negative comments toward 10mm and the Glock 29.
YM pointed out that there are different categories of gun channels on YouTube. He called Hickok45 a Presenter/Entertainer/Mark(in the positive meaning of the word) and commented how this type of channel is the most important type on YouTube, because they help to open the gun community to larger audiences. I can't see how that's throwing him under the bus.
He made a point to say that the onus really lies on the person watching the videos to recognize the difference between a Presenter and, say, a Reviewer. I can see where some might take exception to him using the word "shill", but he made a point of saying being a shill is not necessarily a bad thing. The definition of shill is " is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization". This is not bad thing unless the person takes it to the level of giving credibility to organizations that are actually at odds with the gun communities best interests. Admittedly, he did seem to start using the term "shill" in the more negative aspect as he went along and can see where this might have been confusing.
If you are interested in seeing him say it in his own words here are the links to the videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl4wZMmpfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUBZ3EwoiRc
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 26 2017 04:45:41 PM MDT
I am gonna try this one last time, without examples since I keep offering them as a general attempt to outline and they keep getting attacked like straw men.
The courts have already shown they won't guarantee our rights as they should. We have to negotiate for them.
Given that reality, I will accept bargains in which provides a net increase of recognition of my rights.
There is good news. The anti-gun groups irrationally fear guns. Irrational fears lead to irrational decisions. And, they are motivated to deal in the wake of these kinds of tragedies. We are doing ourselves a dis-service by not smartly negotiating when our opponents are both irrational and emotional.
Please understand that I hold you in high regard. I have learned a great deal from your posts on this forum and am appreciative of you sharing your knowledge. With that said, you did not give generalities, you gave two specific examples and I responded to those two examples. That is not straw manning. We disagree on this subject, but I would appreciate if you didn't imply that I was using fallacy based arguments to express that.
Quote from: my_old_glock on October 25 2017 08:57:00 PM MDT
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 25 2017 08:19:51 PM MDT
Quote from: Patriot on October 25 2017 07:45:28 PM MDT
Quote from: Rojo27 on October 24 2017 08:18:59 PM MDT
If you only want firearm or ammunition content online that's free from all traces of sponsorship, product placement or marketing plugs... There isn't any.
Hey now...you're on the ONLY firearms content online that's free on any kind of paid content.
We are owned by nobody. Our reviews are real and come from real experience. We'll never take a penny from any company to push a product. And believe me, there has been a ton of offers from some big companies.
You're right, poor word selection. My intention was to reference YouTube content.
What about TNOutdoors 9 and Shooingthebull? They don't seem to advertise.
.
Have you seen new content from either in a year? I haven't either.
SavageOne,
I meant to imply no disrespect. I was acknowledging that we are both reasonable people on the same side of this issue and that the fact that we are disagreeing is most likely due to my shortcomings in this mode of communication. I am certain were we discussing this in person, we would rapidly reach points of agreement.
Please accept my humble apologies.
sqlbullet,
Thank you. I believe you are right.
I watched Yankee for awhile.....but it became increasingly not amusing anymore.
Quote from: SavageOne on October 26 2017 04:56:10 PM MDT
Quote from: 4949shooter on October 26 2017 03:27:28 PM MDT
Yep. When the "Yankee Marshal" threw ole Hickok 45 into his mix of badmouthing other Youtubers, I completely tuned him out. Nobody badmouth's Hickok!
Okay, to be honest, I had tuned him out before this comment. Something about his negative comments toward 10mm and the Glock 29.
YM pointed out that there are different categories of gun channels on YouTube. He called Hickok45 a Presenter/Entertainer/Mark(in the positive meaning of the word) and commented how this type of channel is the most important type on YouTube, because they help to open the gun community to larger audiences. I can't see how that's throwing him under the bus.
He made a point to say that the onus really lies on the person watching the videos to recognize the difference between a Presenter and, say, a Reviewer. I can see where some might take exception to him using the word "shill", but he made a point of saying being a shill is not necessarily a bad thing. The definition of shill is " is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization". This is not bad thing unless the person takes it to the level of giving credibility to organizations that are actually at odds with the gun communities best interests. Admittedly, he did seem to start using the term "shill" in the more negative aspect as he went along and can see where this might have been confusing.
If you are interested in seeing him say it in his own words here are the links to the videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dl4wZMmpfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUBZ3EwoiRc
3:30 to 3:36. It was a less than flattering comment about Hickok, and appears to be totally unprovoked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSX75EwBFM
I have nothing constructive to add to this thread other than to say I can't stand the Yankee marshal.