• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

DoD inspectors signed for the scopes, as is. It belongs to the DoD, now. In the Army, once you sign for something, it's your's; along with the good, the bad, the ugly, the broke and whatever components are missing.

nope. check the FAR under latent defects
the inspectors have only to present that they were not aware that was religious inscription, thinking it was instead production nomenclature
 
I have an idea! All the PC'ers that are hacked off over this, should show their outrage by not buying Trijicon rifle scopes.
I like it. As soon as my loan officer OKs it I'm going to order one with MAT5:44

(so you don't have to look it up) It's "Love thine enemies".
 
nope. check the FAR under latent defects
the inspectors have only to present that they were not aware that was religious inscription, thinking it was instead production nomenclature

It's probably reasonable defense too. Unless cross referencing serial numbers or what have you is standard procedure. In the end, it doesn't affect the scope so it's not bad in that aspect. I just don't think we should be mixing religion and our weapons meant to kill others. Also, if I were still Christian, I'd be rather upset at the misuse of my god.
 
Civilians can still put whatever they want on their rifles, though, right? Good....


5987.jpg
I would think that you would know that that is not a rifle.
 
i did a stint as my companys' armory custodian; i've probably handled at least a thousand RCO's and ACOG's. I never noticed this at all; I'll have to look next time.

If so, then I like this. A nice touch on the part of Trijicon.


but for MOUT i'd still rather have an EOTECH
 
i did a stint as my companys' armory custodian; i've probably handled at least a thousand RCO's and ACOG's. I never noticed this at all; I'll have to look next time.

If so, then I like this. A nice touch on the part of Trijicon.


but for MOUT i'd still rather have an EOTECH

Ya know, I've been involved in long range, precision shooting for about 3 years now and have owned everything from a Leupold Mk 4 to a Night Force 8-25x50 and I still shoot better with open sights out to 500 yards.
 
it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective....
The scopes work exactly as they are supposed to - and thus, they are not defective.
 
Ya know, I've been involved in long range, precision shooting for about 3 years now and have owned everything from a Leupold Mk 4 to a Night Force 8-25x50 and I still shoot better with open sights out to 500 yards.
People generally do not realize how precise and accurate iron sights can be out to 500, 600, even 1000 yards -- even with service-class rifles. Man0sized targets at those ranges are of little issue under competition conditions.

I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x mil-dot on top of my M700, and I can put 19 out of 20 into a pie plate at 1000yds. I cannot do it with open sights because of my eyes, but I do know people that can.
 
...as if someone would actually choose or alter their religious preference based on the serial number on a gunsight... who cares?

In all practicality, It helped me memorize the serial number on mine when it was issued to me.

The only upside to this-- if they are decommissioned and taxpayer dollars are spent to get sights without the biblical references, I can get one of the decommissioned pieces for cheap as military surplus. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
...as if someone would actually choose or alter their religious preference based on the serial number on a gunsight... who cares?

In all practicality, It helped me memorize the serial number on mine when it was issued to me.

The only upside to this-- if they are decommissioned and taxpayer dollars are spent to get sights without the biblical references, I can get one of the decommissioned pieces for cheap as military surplus. :2razz:

Two questions:

1. Does the USMC allow you to perches your own accessories? I know there was some hubbub about body armor a while back, but if you had a preference for a grip or a light, is there some leeway to buy your own?

2. (kind of off-topic) Does the USMC currently use the Land Warrior System, plan to use it, or is the USMC developing their own?
 
Two questions:

1. Does the USMC allow you to perches your own accessories? I know there was some hubbub about body armor a while back, but if you had a preference for a grip or a light, is there some leeway to buy your own?

Ultimately depends on what the higher-ups (usually at least a company commander) allows...

From my own experience, they generally don't care about certain items such as slings, tactical pouches, etc. as long as no obvious uniform regs. are violated. And even this goes out the window in combat situations.

Weapons accessories were standard issue (by weapon system) but no one was forced to put anything on their weapon they did not want to. If, say, you were issued a surefire light but preffered another brand, no one I ever had in my chain of command would complain. (everyone I knew used their ACOGs, they are good sights)

With regards to actual personal weapons, they were very restrictive. I had a Staff Sergeant in my company try to bring a personal rifle and it was confiscated.

As far as armor is concerned, I was never issued the side plates, and didn't personally know anyone who had their own (they're expensive as hell). We just trained to keep our bodies square to targets in a fight to maximize the protective value of what we had.


2. (kind of off-topic) Does the USMC currently use the Land Warrior System, plan to use it, or is the USMC developing their own?

No, and as far as their plans I don't know. Whatever the case, its a bureaucracy and such decisions are liable to change with whatever way the wind blows.
 
Last edited:
No, and as far as their plans I don't know. Whatever the case, its a bureaucracy and such decisions are liable to change with whatever way the wind blows.

I just thought that since the Army is borrowing from the USMC for their new Class-A, that the Army might repay the USMC with the Land Warrior System ;)
 
I just thought that since the Army is borrowing from the USMC for their new Class-A, that the Army might repay the USMC with the Land Warrior System ;)

The marines will probably get it in about 30 years or so...:2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom