• AWB introduced today
    131 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39344774]that's awesome! good thing I never said the AWB caused the decrease.[/QUOTE] Then your statement was dumb and pointless? You were also wrong in saying that it didn't hurt. Seriously, it'd be like me saying in a global warming thread "Hey guys, when pirates in Somalia are more active, Global warming goes down. Not saying piracy is the reason for that, but having more pirates couldn't hurt".
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39344918]What? No.... It's a red dot sight, it has zero magnification, and it doesn't matter how far forward or back it is, the sight's effectiveness doesn't change. That carry handle has an iron sight in it that lines up with the front sight. The red dot sight is co-witnessed with those iron sights, meaning it is in line with them. This allows the operator to focus on the target with their eyes and use the red dot, or opt for longer range precision shooting with the iron sights. Also, in my opinion, it is generally stupid to remove iron sights from a weapon that is using a RDS, and I believe many people would agree with me (including the US Military). Batteries fail, and you won't have as much precision with an RDS as you will with iron sights. The red dot will cover a target at long range, an iron sight will not.[/QUOTE] Co-witnessing is great for making accurate shots at range, but you do so using flip up sights. The front post being mounted is acceptable, though annoying. The rear sight needs to be flip though. The point being that you can swap to using only the red dot sight in close quarters. Iron sights are for accuracy, the RDS is for speed. With the iron sights getting in the way of your RDS, you defeat the purpose of a co-witness. It is like having a dual boot computer and then removing the option to boot to one of the OS's. Why bother having both if you can only realistically use one.
[QUOTE=GunFox;39345049]Co-witnessing is great for making accurate shots at range, but you do so using flip up sights. The front post being mounted is acceptable, though annoying. The rear sight needs to be flip though. The point being that you can swap to using only the red dot sight in close quarters. Iron sights are for accuracy, the RDS is for speed. With the iron sights getting in the way of your RDS, you defeat the purpose of a co-witness. It is like having a dual boot computer and then removing the option to boot to one of the OS's. Why bother having both if you can only realistically use one.[/QUOTE] No, you do not defeat the purpose of a co-witness when the sight is there, not at all. Your statements completely contradict the purpose of the co-witness. Co-witness sights were originally designed to be used with FIXED sights. An RDS is meant for peripheral vision. The dot can easily be seen and pasted on a target without ever having to look at it, that's the whole advantage of the sight, and this can be done regardless of the type of iron sights are on the rifle. The point of a co-witness is to have a seamless transition from close range target acquisition to long range precision, and having flip-up sights slows this process down. Also, flip-up sights can fail, which is another good argument for having fixed sights. In reality though, it's completely left to personal preference. Having a fixed front and rear has no detrimental effect whatsoever to a co-witness, and are what a co-witness is truly supposed to be used with. If it did have an effect, I highly doubt the Seals would use Aimpoints with LMT fixed rears as standard issue on their CQBR rifles. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_Navy_070605-N-3642E-586_U.S._Navy_SEALs_%28Sea%2C_Air%2C_Land%29_perform_a_live_fire_exercise_for_the_Secretary_of_the_Navy_%28SECNAV%29_The_Honorable_Dr._Donald_C._Winter.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg[/img] Here is a shot of VBSS as well: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/US_Navy_080619-N-2838W-025_Members_of_the_visit%2C_board%2C_search_and_seizure_%28VBSS%29_team_aboard_the_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_Bulkeley_%28DDG_84%29_practice_essential_gun-firing_procedures_with_the_MK-18_rifle.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39344761]This is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make, you are just restating it. The point is not moot. Again, his argument for banning is based on what they were originally designed for. My point is that purposes change over time (my example was the comment about knives), and basing an argument solely on something's original purpose is stupid. I apologize that I didn't spell it out entirely.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39344938]Then your statement was dumb and pointless? You were also wrong in saying that it didn't hurt. Seriously, it'd be like me saying in a global warming thread "Hey guys, when pirates in Somalia are more active, Global warming goes down. Not saying piracy is the reason for that, but having more pirates couldn't hurt".[/QUOTE] Well maybe that'd be a comparable situation if everyone actually thought that pirates made it worse
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39345522]Well maybe that'd be a comparable situation if everyone actually thought that pirates made it worse[/QUOTE] His point is there is no correlation, and that it's stupid to rely on what people THINK, rather than using hard facts.
Good thing I dont have ~1000 rounds of .223 I could have gotten for my birthday to put in all of these 30 rounds mags that i dont have, cause that shit is dangerous!
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39343688]can I add, without getting dumbs, that after the first AWB the crime rate in America went down as fuck, I'm not saying that AWB was the cause, but conversely, it didn't hurt, so I can't say that the AWB will make anything worse.[/QUOTE] The idea that the AWB accomplished anything positive has been utterly crushed by mountains of data and studies. Saying that it won't do anything harmful is completely irrelevant. To ban something, you have to have a valid reason. It's lemming logic to say otherwise, and you are objectively terrible at logical reasoning if you attempt to use that as justification for any action. So no, using that idiotic line of logic does in fact make you dumb.
Are there any projections of how the votes will go on this?
[QUOTE=Morcam;39345881]Are there any projections of how the votes will go on this?[/QUOTE] The biggest consensus (which is still a wild guess), is it will not pass. The house is controlled by the Republicans, which by a large shot will not support the bill. On the Democratic side of the house, there are several up for re-election in 2014, as well as some pro-gun Democrats. The ones up for re-election will likely not vote in favor due to fear of not being re-elected. (Clinton stated himself that he believes the original AWB is what caused the Democrats to lose the White House.)
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39344774]that's awesome! good thing I never said the AWB caused the decrease.[/QUOTE] Neat! Good thing i never said you did. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;39345881]Are there any projections of how the votes will go on this?[/QUOTE] It's honestly way too soon to even guess a number.
Fienstien is by far the worst people to have spearheading this, she is the poster child of the crazy liberal nanny who has been fighting for decades to take everyone's guns away. Get somebody reasonable and well-respected to introduce the bill, not her. Either way, this is going nowhere in the House, any Republican who supports it will lose their job to an NRA-backed primary challenger.
[quote]"These massacres don't seem to stop," the California Democrat said, listing notorious rampages of past years known by the lone name of their locations -- Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson and Oak Creek. [/quote] Did I ever mention how fucking WEIRD it is to have my home town (and where my house is) mentioned in a list of large massacres?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs[/media]
[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39345522]Well maybe that'd be a comparable situation if everyone actually thought that pirates made it worse[/QUOTE] Basing laws and legislation of what people [i]think[/i] is retarded.
[quote]No, you do not defeat the purpose of a co-witness when the sight is there, not at all. Your statements completely contradict the purpose of the co-witness. Co-witness sights were originally designed to be used with FIXED sights. An RDS is meant for peripheral vision. The dot can easily be seen and pasted on a target without ever having to look at it, that's the whole advantage of the sight, and this can be done regardless of the type of iron sights are on the rifle. The point of a co-witness is to have a seamless transition from close range target acquisition to long range precision, and having flip-up sights slows this process down. Also, flip-up sights can fail, which is another good argument for having fixed sights. In reality though, it's completely left to personal preference. Having a fixed front and rear has no detrimental effect whatsoever to a co-witness, and are what a co-witness is truly supposed to be used with. If it did have an effect, I highly doubt the Seals would use Aimpoints with LMT fixed rears as standard issue on their CQBR rifles.[/quote] Boy, do I have guns for you to be mad at. [url]http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/user/2/28345-177536-0gunshowdotheyworkjpg-620x.jpg[/url] [url]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2922/img0361q.jpg[/url] Back to the subject at hand: I don't see how this ban helps anyone with anything.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39348134]Boy, do I have guns for you to be mad at. [url]http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/user/2/28345-177536-0gunshowdotheyworkjpg-620x.jpg[/url] [url]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2922/img0361q.jpg[/url] Back to the subject at hand: I don't see how this ban helps anyone with anything.[/QUOTE] Blasphemy! It doesn't help anything at all, but that really isn't the problem. Once the anti-gun people recognize the problem is it infringes on our constitutional rights, then we might can have logical discussions. Chances of that happening though are slim to none. Can you imagine the reaction if they were trying to restrict certain parts of freedom of speech, or ban the practicing of certain religions?
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39345118]No, you do not defeat the purpose of a co-witness when the sight is there, not at all. Your statements completely contradict the purpose of the co-witness. Co-witness sights were originally designed to be used with FIXED sights. An RDS is meant for peripheral vision. The dot can easily be seen and pasted on a target without ever having to look at it, that's the whole advantage of the sight, and this can be done regardless of the type of iron sights are on the rifle. The point of a co-witness is to have a seamless transition from close range target acquisition to long range precision, and having flip-up sights slows this process down. Also, flip-up sights can fail, which is another good argument for having fixed sights. In reality though, it's completely left to personal preference. Having a fixed front and rear has no detrimental effect whatsoever to a co-witness, and are what a co-witness is truly supposed to be used with. If it did have an effect, I highly doubt the Seals would use Aimpoints with LMT fixed rears as standard issue on their CQBR rifles. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_Navy_070605-N-3642E-586_U.S._Navy_SEALs_%28Sea%2C_Air%2C_Land%29_perform_a_live_fire_exercise_for_the_Secretary_of_the_Navy_%28SECNAV%29_The_Honorable_Dr._Donald_C._Winter.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg[/img] Here is a shot of VBSS as well: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/US_Navy_080619-N-2838W-025_Members_of_the_visit%2C_board%2C_search_and_seizure_%28VBSS%29_team_aboard_the_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_Bulkeley_%28DDG_84%29_practice_essential_gun-firing_procedures_with_the_MK-18_rifle.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] LMT sights are specialty sights that are designed to keep you from having to use flip up sights. The entire point of them is that normal mounted sights suck for that purpose.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39346029]The biggest consensus (which is still a wild guess), is it will not pass. The house is controlled by the Republicans, which by a large shot will not support the bill. On the Democratic side of the house, there are several up for re-election in 2014, as well as some pro-gun Democrats. The ones up for re-election will likely not vote in favor due to fear of not being re-elected. (Clinton stated himself that he believes the original AWB is what caused the Democrats to lose the White House.)[/QUOTE] Thank god for republicans and progun demos omg
Batteries do fail, yes. You don't have to worry about that with an ACOG though. Anyways, the M68 CCO I have on my weapon co witnesses the front sight, though I don't ever use both at the same time. If I am shooting with irons, the sight is off and I remove the honeycomb from the sight. If I am shooting with the M68, I only focus on the dot, and not the front sight post. The dot is where my bullets are going. My point is, that it is not a huge problem.
I can't wait until someone shoots another place up, Even though he is following all these new laws.
[QUOTE=Blockhead;39349512]I can't wait until someone shoots another place up, Even though he is following all these new laws.[/QUOTE] Wishing for tragedy to strike just to further your agenda is the exact same thing that nearly every anti-gun agenda thrives on. I'd much rather we not have more tragedy, thank you.
[QUOTE=draugur;39349589]Wishing for tragedy to strike just to further your agenda is the exact same thing that nearly every anti-gun agenda thrives on. I'd much rather we not have more tragedy, thank you.[/QUOTE] Besides, it already happened during the last failed AWB
I am afraid that the only way people like Feinstein will see the flaw in their own logic is for another maniac to use a banned "assault weapon" in a massacre. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] Also, I have a question for somebody. Would this ban a Benelli M4? I read the proposed ban and I don't think it would but I want to be sure.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39342746]WE NEVER COULD SINCE 1986 ARRGGGH Not sure if really good troll or stupid[/QUOTE] You could and you still can even if this bill passes since NFA items aren't effected.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;39350012]You could and you still can even if this bill passes since NFA items aren't effected.[/QUOTE] But does it not require a specific license to do so that isn't easy to obtain?
[QUOTE=Blockhead;39349512]I can't wait until someone shoots another place up, Even though he is following all these new laws.[/QUOTE] you're insane/disgusting/irrational "america... needs more shootings, LOL :)"
[QUOTE=Pantz76;39349918]I am afraid that the only way people like Feinstein will see the flaw in their own logic is for another maniac to use a banned "assault weapon" in a massacre. [editline]24th January 2013[/editline] Also, I have a question for somebody. Would this ban a Benelli M4? I read the proposed ban and I don't think it would but I want to be sure.[/QUOTE] These people will NEVER see the flaw in their logic. It will only cement their beliefs more.
I'll just hide mine in between my mattress. It's so stupid no one will ever care to look.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;39350114]But does it not require a specific license to do so that isn't easy to obtain?[/QUOTE] No, it's just a $200 fee and registration; the main bullshit is the time it takes the ATF to process it which in the past 10 years has never been less than 3 weeks, and usually take 2 to 3 months.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.