Now I know I am buying a Trijicon sight!!!

This is a discussion on Now I know I am buying a Trijicon sight!!! within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Bill of Rights and Later Amendments Index to this page Bill of Rights Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly Amendment 2 Right to bear arms Amendment ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80

Thread: Now I know I am buying a Trijicon sight!!!

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,542
    Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
    Index to this page
    Bill of Rights
    Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
    Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
    Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
    Amendment 4 Search and arrest
    Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
    Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
    Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
    Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
    Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
    Amendment 10 States' rights Later Amendments
    Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
    Amendment 12 Presidential elections
    Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
    Amendment 14 Civil rights
    Amendment 15 Black suffrage
    Amendment 16 Income taxes
    Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
    Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
    Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
    Amendment 20 Terms of office
    Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
    Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
    Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
    Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
    Amendment 25 Presidential succession
    Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
    Amendment 27 Congressional pay raises


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Original Ten Amendments: The Bill of Rights
    Passed by Congress September 25, 1789.
    Ratified December 15, 1791.

    Amendment I
    Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    For all you crybabies who do not understand how the amendment READS, it is saying THE government cannot establish a religion, ie;(The church of England)
    OR prohibiting the excercise THEREOF. Trijicon is EXERCISING their right. IF you're in the military AND you do not like them exercising their right on a piece of equipment you are using, don't use it
    Good Grief Already


    The debate between Socialism and Capitalism is only over because Capitalism was bound, gagged, and locked up in a deep, dark dungeon around about the time the Fed was established and income taxes started being levied. Capitalism didn’t lose. Capitalism was never even allowed to show up for the debate—because if it had been, it would have won hands down. The best way for the Socialists to assure victory has always been to cheat.
    browncoat78
    Last edited by oneshot; January 20th, 2010 at 09:30 PM.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: oneshot-- really? some common civility please

    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    For all you crybabies who do not understand how the amendment READS, it is saying THE government cannot establish a religion, ie;(The church of England)
    OR prohibiting the excercise THEREOF. Trijicon is EXERCISING their right. IF you're in the military AND you do not like them exercising their right on a piece of equipment you are using, don't use it
    Good Grief Already
    browncoat78
    Really? You suppose if you are in the military and are handed a piece of equipment that has an inscription you don't approve of you can just say NO. Come on now. You know that isn't a viable option and that you'd be mad as a hatter in the August Texas Sun if someone gave you a piece of equipment with 666 or 777 or whatever number it is that is supposed to be the sign of the devil engraved on it.

    Why would you think non-christians wouldn't be similarly upset if they were handed equipment with sectarian christian inscriptions?

    You'd be jumping up and down that devil worship is being forced on you. You'd complain that the government has no business supporting the devil. And you'd be right. The government needs to stay out of any appearance of supporting any particularized religious viewpoint-- christian, islam, buddist, atheist, bahai. It doesn't matter.

    In a way this "controversy" regarding Tricon has less to do with constitutional issues than ordinary civility. We all have to get along. No point to deliberately being antagonistic or deliberately being offensive.

  4. #63
    Distinguished Member Array Madcap_Magician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,547
    At this point it still seems to me like the whole issue is now dependent on whether or not Trijicon knowingly violated the terms of their defense contracts.

    As I said before, if they did, then I understand the trouble. I don't care about first amendment issues if this is the case, because if Trijicon was specifically told not to do something and went ahead and deliberately did it in spite of the rule, then that's a clear contract violation.

    If it was accidental, I think it's a harmless mistake that is easily fixed by running all new ACOG and reflex sights for the military with different serial numbers. Since it's harmless, there's no need to freak out about the sights in current use. Just let them be eventually cycled out of service.

    I know CAIR is up in arms about this, claiming that this will let Islamic fanatics claim the crusaders are out to get them... but if we're honest, they've been saying that anyway, so there is no effective change here.

    If the terms of Trijicon's contract say nothing that would prohibit the serial number system they use, and Trijicon did it because they've always done it, then again, I see nothing that changing the contract terms for next time won't fix.

    The reason I don't think this is a first amendment issue is this:

    1. Trijicon is a private company providing items to the federal and state governments.
    2. The purpose of the government acquiring those items is to improve the combat capabilities of American troops (Not to proselytize anything or impose anyone's religion or lack of religion on anyone else).
    3. The items in question are not proselytizing or endorsing anything in a manner that I think could be reasonably considered offensive. In order to be offended, one would have to look at the very small serial number, understand what the last few letters and numbers are, understand what the reference is to, and decide that this is the federal government attempting to convert you to Christianity or favor Christianity over any other religion.

    That seems unreasonable to me. The only thing I conclude from ACOGs being in service is that the US military favors Trijicon over other providers of similar sights.

    4. American currency still has "In God We Trust" stamped on every coin and printed on every bill. I don't think any sane person considers this an attempt by the Treasury to make people believe in God. Yet, if anything should be an issue, this should be. The reference is blatant, the thing with the reference on it is actually made by the US government, and there are no other choices of currency to use.

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Sam Rudolph

    Quote Originally Posted by SamRudolph View Post

    If it was accidental, I think it's a harmless mistake that is easily fixed by running all new ACOG and reflex sights for the military with different serial numbers. Since it's harmless, there's no need to freak out about the sights in current use. Just let them be eventually cycled out of service.
    These sights with inscriptions were sold in countries where forms of christianity are the official state religion. Yet, even in such places, the governments have determined to get the inscriptions off their military equipment. Specifically, I'm referencing decisions by both Australia and New Zealand. It seems like those governments, officially christian, didn't think this was harmless.

  6. #65
    Senior Member Array cuban11182's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    668
    Well Trijicon has offered to stop producing the ones with the biblical passages and offered to "fix" the ones already deployed. I guess that $660 million dollar means that much to them to get rid of something they've been doing since the founder passed. Funny what money will do.

  7. #66
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by cuban11182 View Post
    Well Trijicon has offered to stop producing the ones with the biblical passages and offered to "fix" the ones already deployed. I guess that $660 million dollar means that much to them to get rid of something they've been doing since the founder passed. Funny what money will do.
    Here's the story for those who want to read the whole thing: Company offers to stop putting biblical references on military scopes - CNN.com

    See now folks? Just like I said, it didn't require any great output of time, effort, or taxpayer dollars. They obviously got told to stop if they wanted to keep their contract and they did.

  8. #67
    Member Array HardCorps79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    156
    I foresee this thread coming to a close very soon and just wanted to make a few final comments. More than anything, what this controversy shows is a great divide among the American people with regard to their interpretation of the Bill of Rights. As much as folks want to parse the 2nd Amendment to suit their agendas, it says what it says in plain English.

    Likewise, the 1st Amendment. When I studied translation of ancient texts in college we had a rule, "Context is king!" It makes no sense to attempt to interpret Akkadian or Syriac texts outside of an understanding of the views of their authors (if known from other texts) or in light of modern principles and philosophies. This is called anachronism.

    The 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted and applied without understanding the intent of the framers from their other writings and the context of their time. It was not a guarantee against exposure to religion. Much less was it intended to preclude the United States Government itself from practicing or participating in Christian rites. To assert as much is to completely ignore a wide body of documentation to the contrary. The intent was to prohibit the Government from establishing one particular State brand of interpretation of the Scriptures as England had done with the establishment of the Anglican Church. I would wager my life that no thought entered any signatory's mind that it would at some later date be used to enforce prohibitions against any sort of common Christian practice. Our national historic artifacts are rife with scriptural references.

    As Pastor said earlier, the idea of "separation of Church and State" does not reside in the constitution. Jefferson himself was no fan of tyranny, specifically that committed by religious tyrants against whom he variously expressed his vehemance. Yet, he asserted to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 that they ought not feel any limitation on their free exercise of religion due to the 1st Amendment "building a wall of separation between church and State". Meaning, he said nothing about the 1st protecting government from religion. Any views to the contrary, despite Jefferson's general animosity toward the established Church (not God or religion, as in this particular case Baptists), is a whimsical fabrication and distortion of the quote and its intent.

    Current law may have been violated, but we all really hate some of those unconstitutional limitations of the 2nd Amendment don't we? *rhetorical lilt*

    Likewise with the 1st.

    I am not endorsing Trijicon's actions, nor am I commenting on any person's choice to believe or not believe. I am simply offering a bit of a history lesson on the content debated and some insight into Principles of Interpretation of historic texts.

    For your consideration with respect to THIS author's "context":
    I am a bit more open minded than I believe are most folks of my religious heritage and am alternately accused of being a liberal by my Republican friends and a right-wing nut job by my Democrat friends. As a strict Constitutional Libertarian I am quite staunchly opposed to government establishment of any Christian sect. I can't quite say that Trijicon's actions are in violation of the intent of our Constitution's authors. Perhaps some folks are becoming Christophobic.
    NRA Certified Instructor (6 years)
    Former LEO/DOD Contractor
    Active Duty Marine (Martial Arts Instructor)
    Glock 17, Kel-Tec P-11, S&W Model 60, various rifles

  9. #68
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,628
    Just heard that this same topic was canned earlier today.

    Sorry Mods, I wasn't on line today so I didn't see it. If you want to dump this one too, feel free.
    This thread is going to be canned for the same reason that the other one was. It became a thread about religion which we have learned always ends up with hurt feelings and for that reason I will be closing this one soon.

    I will say this. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. The Scriptural references have been there for nearly 2 decades.

    It was the U.S. Government that bought the sights because they were good sights and felt that they would offer an advantage to our warriors, of which I have no doubt, since I have used them myself on police weapons. It was the responsibility of those originally purchasing the product to make sure that it adhered to governmental standards.

    Apparently it wasn't an issue then like it seems to be now. And since this subject could be argued for the next hundred years between those with religion and those with none, this topic doomed from the start.

    Any more argument about religion and government and what is supposed to be an what aint and this one is over.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #69
    Member Array Ramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    167
    You know there's a really great quote from the Talmud I'd like to have on a weapon.

    "If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first"

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    It was the U.S. Government that bought the sights because they were good sights and felt that they would offer an advantage to our warriors, of which I have no doubt, since I have used them myself on police weapons. It was the responsibility of those originally purchasing the product to make sure that it adhered to governmental standards.

    Apparently it wasn't an issue then like it seems to be now. And since this subject could be argued for the next hundred years between those with religion and those with none, this topic doomed from the start.

    Any more argument about religion and government and what is supposed to be an what aint and this one is over.

    Yep, totally agree...and again, you have saved my fingers from allot of typing.

  12. #71
    Distinguished Member Array Madcap_Magician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,547
    I saw that Trijicon will be renumbering all future DoD contract optics and is providing the means to modify the serial numbers on current units.

    I got the feeling from them that they were a bit flustered by the whole thing. Kinda like a "Wow... we've been doing this for 20 years, never thought it'd be such a huge stink..."

  13. #72
    Member Array DblTap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    174
    Looks like mine is "blessed". Those B27's better look out!
    JN8:12 ?




    Hunting closet Monsters:
    Ritalin - So much easier than parenting.

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array ASSA9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte,NC.
    Posts
    838
    The only thing I have to add to this post is that the irony that the US Gov. is buying these sights with money that has "In God We Trust" printed on it is not
    lost on me.
    Zoe: "Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?

    Book: "Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."

  15. #74
    Distinguished Member Array PastorPack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,572
    Great post HardCorps79!

    Now if anyone is deeply offended by the scripture reference on their ACOG, feel free to send it to me (I'll even pay for shipping). Just doing my part to spread religious freedom!
    God is love (1 John 4:8)

  16. #75
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by HardCorps79 View Post
    It was not a guarantee against exposure to religion.
    The issue isn't exposure to religion.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Trijicon Front Sight Problem with a Beretta 9000S
    By GHFLRLTD in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2010, 05:03 PM
  2. Trijicon night sight/loose set screw?
    By resqr9142 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 16th, 2010, 10:21 PM
  3. What is a "Trijicon RedDot Sight" and how does it work?
    By aznav in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 29th, 2009, 12:05 AM
  4. Glock Trijicon Sight Removal
    By NCMedic8617 in forum Firearm Cleaning & Maintenance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 29th, 2009, 08:48 PM

Search tags for this page

is trijicon publicly traded

,
military property markings trijicon
,

trijaconscopes publictradedorprivateheld

,
trijicon gov investigation
,

trijicon government contracts

,
trijicon government procurement optics
,
trijicon night sight jesus codes
,
trijicon omo
,
trijicon public trading
,

trijicon publicly traded

,

trijicon serial number list

,
war idiot trijicon site
Click on a term to search for related topics.