Jump to content

Gun Talk


VL-16

Recommended Posts

It's all relative. I don't exactly have CR123's laying around the house like AAs. I also don't have a set of NVGs I can snag some 123s from. Yeah granted, you could buy a shit-ton online and keep them for a rainy day, but 123s aren't as useful in everyday life as AAs. Just my .02.

Edited by ChkHandleDn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31ECOS

Here's a fantastic option if you can afford it. I shot my buddy's last weekend and though transitioning from the red dot to the ACOG/magnified reticle (ie scope) would definitely take some practice, it seems to capture thr best of both worlds...and it's hard to go wrong with a Trijicon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at getting a new sight for an AR. I'm leaning towards the EO tech XPS2. Anyone have experience they can share?

I'm looking at getting a new sight for an AR. I'm leaning towards the EO tech XPS2. Anyone have experience they can share?

I love my Aimpoint Micro. But the EOTech has some nice reticle options. Probably can't go wrong between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposed Washington State gun control law includes annual home 'inspections' for legal owners

By ROBERT LAURIE - Attempting to trample the 2nd and 4th Amendments with one terrible law?

Whenever liberals broach the subject of gun control, a pair of caveats has been standard. They are: "no one wants to go house to house rounding up guns" and "if you already owned a newly banned firearm, you can keep it." You'll just have to register your guns, go through background checks, and put your name into a federal database of people who own weapons that the government considers scary.

2nd Amendment advocates argue that, since these measures only affect law-abiding owners, they'll do nothing to prevent violent crime. Such a database would serve only to give the feds a list of people who it could later target with harassment and confiscation.

...oh sorry, they don't like the word "confiscation." They prefer the term "forced buybacks."

Regardless of the terminology, gun control zealots assure you that they only want to know who owns what. They promise the jack boots won't be coming through your front door.

.

...Unless you live in Washington State, where a recently proposed gun control law initially contained the following:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Yep, if the bill had passed, Pacific Northwesterners would have been able to keep their ill-defined "assault weapons." All they'd have to do is acquiesce to the elimination of their 4th Amendment rights and endure annual warrantless "inspections." Failure to comply with the searches would have carried a penalty of up to a year in prison.

To be fair, the provision doomed the legislation. Even far left rags like The Seattle Times admitted that including the unconstitutional search of citizen’s homes might have been a "mistake." Last week, the bill was revised and the passage was removed.

Left-wing ideologues will say that the system worked. Some low level state lawmaker went too far, people recognized it, and they were reigned in. That may be true - for now - but it's worth paying attention to the endeavor. Every time Democrats make an effort like this, they're broadcasting their intentions. They may not have gotten what they wanted this time, but you can bet they'll try again.

If there's one thing you can count on with the liberal progressive movement, it's that their failures are only first attempts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Dakota passes bill allowing CC in schools.

The North Dakota House on Monday passed a bill that would allow people with concealed weapon permits to carry guns on school grounds.

Representatives passed House Bill 1215 by a 60-33 vote after about 20 minutes of debate.

HB1215 would allow those with concealed weapon permits to carry firearms on school grounds if a school has developed and approved a policy to allow it. Discussion on adopting a concealed firearm policy could be done in executive session. Law enforcement would be notified of who has been granted permission to carry a firearm.

Part of the debate in opposition to HB1215 centered on the ability of a school to deliberate on a concealed weapon policy in executive session. Rep. Glen Froseth, R-Kenmare, said he didn’t like the idea of allowing more government meetings to be held in private.

“If you’re a public official and you don’t want the public to know what you’re doing, you probably shouldn’t be doing it,” Froseth said.

Froseth said he also didn’t agree with an argument made by proponents of the bill that a shooter would specifically target a school with a gun-free policy.

“I seriously doubt a shooter would go through the minutes of a school board meeting to determine where the guns are,” Froseth said.

Rep. Dwight Kiefert, R-Valley City, said he was surprised by the opposition to the bill mainly coming from the executive session portion. He added that declaring a school to be a gun-free zone was “like putting a white flag in the air.”

Rep. Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, said some people in the country believe schools are safer if they’re gun-free zones.

“Tragedy … has proven that to be a fallacy,” Koppelman said.

HB1215 resolves two questions, Koppelman said. Those questions are whether or not to allow schools to decide if they want their facilities to have additional protection as well as who will be able to make that decision.

Rep. Bill Amerman, D-Forman, sought to compare having an armed person in a school with trained soldiers. Amerman referenced firefights during his time in the Vietnam War. He said soldiers “trained to kill” would fire, sometimes wildly, in the chaotic moments of a sudden battle. He said compare that to someone in a loud, chaotic scene in a school shooting.

“It’s not just bad people with guns that kill people, it’s good people with guns,” Amerman said.

Amerman also questioned the idea that having an armed person in a school would serve as a deterrent for a gunman.

“They’re not going to worry about whether or not someone there is packing heat,” Amerman said. “They’re going there to die.”

Kiefert disagreed, saying having an armed person on school grounds is a line of defense before law enforcement arrives. He said the response time for some rural schools could be up to 30 minutes.

“Give the school board the right to defend themselves,” Kiefert said.

Sponsors of HB1215 along with Kiefert and Koppelman are Reps. Bette Grande, R-Fargo, Craig Headland, R-Montpelier, Karen Karls, R-Bismarck, Vernon Laning, R-Bismarck, Todd Porter, R-Mandan, and Sens. Kelly Armstrong, R-Dickinson, Dwight Cook, R-Mandan, Dick Dever,R-Bismarck, David Hogue, R-Minot, and Larry Luick,R-Fairmont.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/north-dakota-house-passes-school-gun-bill/article_c3e0a48e-7f92-11e2-8024-001a4bcf887a.html

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...