I really need to buy a new gun...

David, that is an excellent suggestion for flip up iron sights - with the eotech you will be able to have them flipped up and not have to take off the eotech! All AR set ups should have that as well (called co witness).

 

AJGlobal - love it bro!

 

David - impossible to lose zero on a magnifier since that is all it is. The target is magnified, red dot is not. Zero is maintained in the eotech or whatever your red dot is. A huge plus with a magnifier, even for an ACOG is that you can transition from CQB to medium to long range and back fast. I have a Leupold Mark 6 tactical and it is 1x and can transition to 6x easily but is about 1lb heavier and is pretty big in appearance (alot of weight when having to carry the firearm all day). BUT, it is an amazing scope!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0

 

 

Watch this video. Now.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0

 

 

Watch this video. Now.

 

Wow. Sharing.

Sharing...thank you!

RIP J. Noveske......died in car accident on Jan 4th. I love his rifles!

David - impossible to lose zero on a magnifier since that is all it is. The target is magnified, red dot is not. Zero is maintained in the eotech or whatever your red dot is. A huge plus with a magnifier, even for an ACOG is that you can transition from CQB to medium to long range and back fast. I have a Leupold Mark 6 tactical and it is 1x and can transition to 6x easily but is about 1lb heavier and is pretty big in appearance (alot of weight when having to carry the firearm all day). BUT, it is an amazing scope!

 

Yea I didn't think that through very well haha. I've just never liked the idea of a flip sight, not really sure why... The less moving parts the less possibility of a malfunction I suppose.

 

That's a great vid RD.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0

 

 

Watch this video. Now.

 

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but it does not seem to me like a great argument for more pro-gun people. It's an interesting try at dissecting the data, but bottom line, what it tells you, is that there are more pub fights (violent crimes) reported in the UK but that the UK aggressor are not as good as the American aggressors at finishing off their victims (hence why there is a higher ratio of murders in the U.S.).

 

Just a theory: maybe because they are less guns in the UK, people will beat/stab their victims, injuring them but not being "able" to kill them, where as in the US, they might have a higher chance of being dead due to the aggressor's gun ownership? The easy answer is of course that if the victim had a gun, none of this would have happened, but then again, the "victim" could become the killer for killing the aggressor...

 

Anyhow, just trying to raise another point here. I'm pretty neutral on the argument. I just find it sad when these arguments/discussions turn to this:

 

 

That Alex Jones could possibly the worst kind of spokesperson for the pro-gun groups...he made a complete fool out of himself IMO.

That Alex Jones could possibly the worst kind of spokesperson for the pro-gun groups...he made a complete fool out of himself IMO.

Which is precisely why he was chosen to go on the show to represent pro-gun.

From a few months ago from the president of McMillan USA...the manufacturer of Charlie's new long range bolt action.

Which is precisely why he was chosen to go on the show to represent pro-gun.

 

Probably. Let's not forget his on-going feud with Piers, which brought on himself though.

Alex Jones was detained by TSA on the way to NYC for said appearance

 

I like info wars to a point but the site also has an agenda just like all media.

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but it does not seem to me like a great argument for more pro-gun people. It's an interesting try at dissecting the data, but bottom line, what it tells you, is that there are more pub fights (violent crimes) reported in the UK but that the UK aggressor are not as good as the American aggressors at finishing off their victims (hence why there is a higher ratio of murders in the U.S.).

 

Woman are twice as likely to be raped in the UK as they are in the US. And if you've ever known a woman who has survived that, you'd know better than to dismiss it by analogizing it to a "pub fight".

 

 

So hears the deal.... My wife is the safest person in the world, despite the relative crime statistics in the US. In the UK she would be subject to them because she doesn't have the right to armed defense....

Woman are twice as likely to be raped in the UK as they are in the US. And if you've ever known a woman who has survived that, you'd know better than to dismiss it by analogizing it to a "pub fight".

 

 

So hears the deal.... My wife is the safest person in the world, despite the relative crime statistics in the US. In the UK she would be subject to them because she doesn't have the right to armed defense....

I feel terrible posting a Dailymail link, but this just goes along with what you're saying.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25...Britain-US.html

I feel terrible posting a Dailymail link, but this just goes along with what you're saying.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25...Britain-US.html

I spelled Here's wrong...

 

 

I have a headache.

I love the fact that the article rob posted starts out saying they have a higher crime rate then any other rich nation besides australia, the two main countries people always bring up for the anti gun argument due to their gun bans.....

I love the fact that the article rob posted starts out saying they have a higher crime rate then any other rich nation besides australia, the two main countries people always bring up for the anti gun argument due to their gun bans.....

 

 

And they are also the two nations were gun bans are actually somewhat effective.... They are both ISLANDS.... Which makes getting contraband in more difficult...

 

The U.S. has NEVER been able to effectively ban ANYTHING.... Not Booze.... Not Prostitution.... Not Marijuana... And then the three biggies (since unlike guns, or booze, or prostitutes, they are COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO PRODUCE IN THE U.S. and MUST be smuggled in) HEROIN, COKE, and Illegal Aliens.

They just need to legalize drugs already and tax the hell out of it so they dont have to tax me so much. I feel like it would get the economy going and create more jobs as well.

They just need to legalize drugs already and tax the hell out of it so they dont have to tax me so much. I feel like it would get the economy going and create more jobs as well.

 

And would cause the murder rate in big cities to fall 75%.

Good point, never thought about that aspect of it. All of the USA money would stay in the country and would quit going to Mexico.

 

I really dont think the economy will take off again unless we have another boom created like the internet did for us. I think legalizing drugs would help us out a lot. We could make them here and they would be a heck of lot safer than street drugs.

And would cause the murder rate in big cities to fall 75%.

 

Its a WIN-WIN.

 

and would take ALOT of the money out of the pockets of the Mexican cartels. Which should make Mexico and the US a little safer.

 

I dont see why Mary Jane hasnt been federally legalized yet? I guess people are waiting for all of the old foagies who have a hard-on against it to pass? The only thing I would wonder is how the job market will react? They drug test almost anywhere corporate these days. If it were to be legal, would they have to legally change their policy on it?

 

 

 

Its a WIN-WIN.

 

and would take ALOT of the money out of the pockets of the Mexican cartels. Which should make Mexico and the US a little safer.

 

I dont see why Mary Jane hasnt been federally legalized yet? I guess people are waiting for all of the old foagies who have a hard-on against it to pass? The only thing I would wonder is how the job market will react? They drug test almost anywhere corporate these days. If it were to be legal, would they have to legally change their policy on it?

Most of those "old foagies" have smoked it themselves... Marijuana is illegal because organized crime wants it illegal and they lobby just as hard (and harder) than anybody....

Most of those "old foagies" have smoked it themselves... Marijuana is illegal because organized crime wants it illegal and they lobby just as hard (and harder) than anybody....

 

 

Is anyone slightly worried at the idea of "executive action" being thrown around on the topic of gun control?

 

(for the record i usually ask these questions because the MSM alone gets me all worked up and paranoid and usually RD has to come in, slap some judicial sense into me and makes me feel just that much better again...."

Is anyone slightly worried at the idea of "executive action" being thrown around on the topic of gun control?

 

(for the record i usually ask these questions because the MSM alone gets me all worked up and paranoid and usually RD has to come in, slap some judicial sense into me and makes me feel just that much better again...."

 

If the Executive Branch wants to overstep their bounds by unilaterally limiting a Constitutional right, the odds of a court overturning that decision are high. No?

Gun sales are through the roof right now. It is crazy how fast they are selling guns.