Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85

Thread: Trijicon Company scope article

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lansing,MI, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    My friend sent this to me. I don't know who has read it and/or watched the accompanying video, but it's good.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_usa_security_gunscopes

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I think that verse should be on every shell that lands on their Islamic Jihad buttock!

  3. #3
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Another instance of coddling muslim sensitivity.

    They gotta be laughing their jihadist butts off.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  4. #4
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I sent an email to Stephen Binden yesterday in support of them. Tonight it was reported on foxnews that they are voluntarily removing the reference from future production. And, they are providing kits to the military to remove it from existing sights.

    I understand that their contract is worth around $60,000,000, but I would have told them to buy ACOGs somewhere else.

    Oh that's right, there isn't anywhere else.

    Coddling the muslims.

    Why is islam exempt from critical analysis?

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JasonPappas40401.htm

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Peaceful Muslims...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lansing,MI, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    I'm a Born-Again Christian. I believe that if we allow mosques to built at the rate they are being built here, then we should certainly be allowed to inscribe Scripture on the items we build here to ship there. It's ridiculous and laughable that the officials on the videos were offended.

    There. I feel better.:celebrate



  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    I too am a Born again Christian.

    screw trijicon. ..cowards

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Without starting a religious flame thread, I don’t feel like I want tax dollars being spent on such items that promote specific religious affiliations through our armed forces, or any government faction for that matter.

    Albeit seventy percent of the US population is of some varying degree of Christian religiously, the official religion of the United States is still freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

    Purchasing these scopes via government contract and tax dollars knowingly suggests we are officially something as a nation we are not. Furthermore, it mildly suggests, not just to Muslims, but to the international community of sheeple at large that these are potentially religious wars with hidden agendas which undermine our true intentions which I think is to just stay safe defensively by executing a good offense.



  9. #9
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Let them buy their ACOGs from China. Trijicon is a private company. (That caved for the almighty dollar.) They're not funded by the government. The government is buying their product. The exact same one that you or I can chose to purchase or not. If the government doesn't want ithe subtle inscriptions then their TDP should've specified that. But again the point is moot because Trijicon caved.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Right, I get the private company and right to buy or not buy thing as I do that the point is now relatively moot because Trijicon is undoing their bad. But, I would want to know if the gov't knew of these subtle inscriptions before the deal was struck or if it slipped under the radar by accident or design.

    Is this common practice for Trijicon products or was this done for this specific contract?

    Trijicon should have caved, and the fact that they did makes me believe the egg mostly belongs on thier face (aside from the pressure they received from the gov't to cave).

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Trijicon has been marking their sights like this for 40 years.

    Some liberal pinhead just noticed this week.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Remember it is freedom OF religion, Not freedom from religion! The way I see it is that is my tax money so I might want to exercise my right to religion & want my fellow soldiers to have scope with the love of Jesus on it. If the soldiers ok with it, I'm ok with it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Well, then I stand corrected and you are right. While I continue to believe it should not have happened on government/taxpayer contracted items, the egg should be on the government's face for not stipulating that in their contract requirements or for not realizing this could become a potential issue down the road as it has. You are also right...Trijicon caved.

    I was not familiar with the practice myself.

  14. #14
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Am I going to have to remove the cross I see when I look in my scope now?
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Ethan_Frome wrote:
    Without starting a religious flame thread, I don’t feel like I want tax dollars being spent on such items that promote specific religious affiliations through our armed forces, or any government faction for that matter.

    Albeit seventy percent of the US population is of some varying degree of Christian religiously, the official religion of the United States is still freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

    Purchasing these scopes via government contract and tax dollars knowingly suggests we are officially something as a nation we are not. Furthermore, it mildly suggests, not just to Muslims, but to the international community of sheeple at large that these are potentially religious wars with hidden agendas which undermine our true intentions which I think is to just stay safe defensively by executing a good offense.

    I too don't want this to turn to a religious thread, but I must correct you. There is no such phrase that you speak of...Separation of Church & state. Please if your going to bring this Liberal speak up you need to point out that what was meant by this term ( that does not exist any where in the Constitution) is that Govt. (not Military I mean Politicians) not force any one religion on us, or restrict, any one religion. Nobody forced us to buy those scopes, nobody forced men to join the army, and no one is being forced thru threat of beheading to follow any one religion. Besides who gives a F... what an evil enemy thinks about our Agenda. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, they don't count, and neither do there feelings, or their opinions of us. Sorry rant over! "this thread is clean"

  16. #16
    Guest

    Post imported post

    This war is not a Crusade.

    But, it is a crusade.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    Ethan_Frome wrote:
    Without starting a religious flame thread, I don’t feel like I want tax dollars being spent on such items that promote specific religious affiliations through our armed forces, or any government faction for that matter.

    Albeit seventy percent of the US population is of some varying degree of Christian religiously, the official religion of the United States is still freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

    Purchasing these scopes via government contract and tax dollars knowingly suggests we are officially something as a nation we are not. Furthermore, it mildly suggests, not just to Muslims, but to the international community of sheeple at large that these are potentially religious wars with hidden agendas which undermine our true intentions which I think is to just stay safe defensively by executing a good offense.
    I too don't want this to turn to a religious thread, but I must correct you. There is no such phrase that you speak of...Separation of Church & state. Please if your going to bring this Liberal speak up you need to point out that what was meant by this term ( that does not exist any where in the Constitution) is that Govt. (not Military I mean Politicians) not force any one religion on us, or restrict, any one religion. Nobody forced us to buy those scopes, nobody forced men to join the army, and no one is being forced thru threat of beheading to follow any one religion. Besides who gives a F... what an evil enemy thinks about our Agenda. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, they don't count, and neither do there feelings, or their opinions of us. Sorry rant over! "this thread is clean"
    Respectfully, I understand that “separation of church and state” can not be found anywhere in The Constitution verbatim, but it has been implied by the likes of Jefferson and Madison an has been intimated as such by the high court many times over and deserves, I feel, more consideration than to be disregarded as “liberal speak” in this instance.

    I would think that if you can’t use a public school to hold prayer, or display the 10 Commandments on government property, then the government shouldn’t be purchasing rifle scopes with Christian scripture engraved on them with the taxpayers’ money for military use in religiously sensitive wars. It’s a resource sponsored endorsement by the government of one religion over others. I’m open to the possibility of being wrong, but that’s just the way I see it at this point.

    I would also like to add that I too could give a rat’s behind about what our enemies think of our agendas. My remarks about perceived hidden agendas specifically mentioned not only Muslims, but the world community at large. I think it’s important to make that distinction that it is not the Muslims that we are at war with. We are at war with terrorists who happen to be Islamic extremists that have distorted understandings of the Qur’an which are a threat to the United States.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    It merely means that Barry Hussein cannot tell me to bow before Islam, and he cannot restrict me from bowing before Christ. It merely means that the school cannot tell my son to bring a bible to school, & the school cannot tell him not to bring one. It is a neutral position that they hold.
    We can have a Christian president, or we can have an Atheist. The church and state issue Jefferson spoke of was the same it was in a letter written to another private person. It holds no argumentative value in the 1st Amendment.
    This scope issue is null & void, I have as much right maybe more as a tax payer to have that on my rifle as a soldier as the next tax payer who don't want it simply because this country is a Freedom OF religion, Not Freedom FROM religion.
    As a tax payer (Not a Govt. Entity) with the right to Free speech, & Religion I can have a rifle with the saying on it. If there is a soldier who don't want it then it is up to HIM to complain, But I'll be DAMN if I am going to let some third rate country ruled By the Sword of SATAN, make the rules in this War. If we loose this war it will mean our way of life is lost and for what PC! Rant over!...lol



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    I just want to clarify some thing. We are a freedom of...Means as a Tax Payer I can choose to engage in the free exercise or not. If I am an atheist I actually don't have a right protected by the constitution to force others to not practice religion.

    Plus if Atheist don't believe, if they think it is all made up & not real...Then why does it bother them? Unless maybe there is an Agenda behind it Hmmm

    I don't want to force my belief on anyone, but at the same time I don't want anyone denying me my right to exercise a freedom. Like I said if the soldier has a problem with the verse then I could see an Argument, but to have them taken of all scopes would be denying other people who may want it. Surly the Enemy has no say!

  20. #20
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Freedom of religion.

    Not freedom from religion.

    And... they're not islamic extremist that have distorted the quoran. They are islamic fundamentalists that have studied the quaran extensively and have a keen understanding of its principles, its doctrine, and the application of that doctrine and principles.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Freedom of religion.

    Not freedom from religion.

    And... they're not islamic extremist that have distorted the quoran. They are islamic fundamentalists that have studied the quaran extensively and have a keen understanding of its principles, its doctrine, and the application of that doctrine and principles.
    I agree! I know exactly what their intent is for us!

  22. #22
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

    If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

    1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

    2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

    Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

    For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were "concerned" that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a "Crusade" against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

    Blues
    Last edited by BluesStringer; 03-19-2017 at 11:05 AM.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    BluesStringer wrote:
    I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

    If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

    1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

    2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

    Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

    For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were “concerned” that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a “Crusade” against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

    Blues
    Very Nice Articulation!

  24. #24
    Guest

    Post imported post

    conservative85 wrote:
    BluesStringer wrote:
    I would like to ask Ethan_Frome to answer a question. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm only singling you out because you seem to be the only one with a strong opinion on the "wall of separation" reading side of the ledger.

    If you had to choose between the two following interpretations of original intent of the First Amendment, which one would you choose?

    1) The First Amendment is intended to protect the free exercise of religion from being influenced/restricted by government.

    2) The First Amendment is intended to protect government from being influenced by religion and/or religious citizens.

    Please don't take the "middle-of-the-road' position and say that it means both. Pick one. Since you stated that it can be shown that Madison and Jefferson were more in line with the interpretation you have signed onto in this thread, if you answer that it's #2, please provide some citation(s) from them justifying such an interpretation. Hopefully something more substantial and more deeply-rooted in constitutional law than a cherry-picked phrase out of a personal letter between private citizens. Thanks.

    For myself, it occurs to me that it was pressure from Muslim groups on the federal government that prompted the pressure be passed along to Trijicon. Seems Muslims were “concerned” that the heretofore unknown and hidden message was tantamount to the federal government pursuing a “Crusade” against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in reality, what happened here is that the federal government did endorse a religious view. The Muslim view. As such, the party violating the First Amendment in this conflict seems painfully obvious, not to mention scary and deeply troubling. The government in power right now is anathema to the Constitution in a number of ways, this just being one of the more insignificant examples.

    Blues
    Very Nice Articulation!
    +1

  25. #25
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Try this to see just how PC all this has gotten...

    go to google .com

    In the search block enter "christianity is"

    Then start fresh with a search of "islam is"

    Notice anything odd?

    Try this one...

    "christianity will"

    "islam will"

    Notice a pattern there?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •