If it were a KAC RIS which clamps down on the barrel nut it would make a lot more sense, but that's not what that is, that's just a shitty drop in handguard, so it'll be flopping and twisting all over the place
Journalists are natural born liars, at this point they're incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction if the source is another journalist; and it usually is.
because boomer gunnies are stupid, and in "dunking" on libs they adopt the framing and make the arguments for them. How many times have you seen some dumbass boomerposting like "oh they want to ban .223? Haha well they better take my .308 to lmao, I am very smart" or say some shit about how a common deer rifle has so much more terminal velocity and "stopping power" than an AR?
They live very insulated lives and only report what they are told to. No need for big scary guns when you live in a nice gated community with cops just minutes away. None of them grew up shooting because they were born and raised as passive urbanites and don’t have anywhere to shoot even if they could get guns. Remember that journo that wanted to prove how easy it was to get an AR and he got rejected after the background check?
It’s happened pretty routinely. They go in having no idea how the background checks work answer every question truthfully then are shocked to learn they can’t openly admit to recreational drug use or beat their wives and purchase a firearm while under a restraining order. Last guy threw a tantrum when the gun store employee called him out for hitting women and denied him kek
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columnist-fails-gun-check-blames-store-owners
For those that want tldr >Journo gay named Steinberg because of course it is >Chicagogay >Calls lgs to ask if he can run his little experiment >Rude to customer service over the phone >Calls it the Valley of Death >Lies about the amount of sales performed without background checks >Admits the lgs employees were friendly >Asks if he can quote one of them and is told no so he quotes him and says that this is him not quoting him >Is declined based on his history of alcohol abuse and beating his wife >Reeees incoherently because he thinks it’s because he’s a journalist and not an insufferable b***h >Says most people that buy guns are alcoholics that beat their wives >LGS contact his employer and explain exactly why he was denied and how much of a c**t he was being
>Journalists are clueless about almost everything
^This. They at best get expensive degrees in fiction and gossip writing, rather than being an investigator, researcher, or in building expertise in any field. At worst they are simply indoctrinated into writing about approved political opinions. Add on top of that, most media outlets are compromised by corporate sponsors and political partisanship.
Real, basic journalism is not difficult or complicated. Covering technical or large topics can be a challenge.
>They at best get expensive degrees in fiction and gossip writing,
Literally this
Modern news is all disconnected, decontextualized, sensationalist shit
To get well written and thoroughly investigated journalism you'd have to go before the TV was invented at least, before the telegraph for its peak
>Journalists are clueless about almost everything
^This. They at best get expensive degrees in fiction and gossip writing, rather than being an investigator, researcher, or in building expertise in any field. At worst they are simply indoctrinated into writing about approved political opinions. Add on top of that, most media outlets are compromised by corporate sponsors and political partisanship.
Real, basic journalism is not difficult or complicated. Covering technical or large topics can be a challenge.
>Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this. …
>Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. … You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues.
>You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. …
>In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. … But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. … The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
This
The industry knows this and doesn't care. All they want is clicks and ad revenue. The rot includes supposedly expert papers like FT and WSJ. I once asked a journo friend at a reputable paper if I could join him, bring my technical expertise to his paper and bump up the quality in its business pages a tad. He said there's no point, they wouldn't pay any extra anyways. And pointed out several "subject matter expert" journos in the paper who had only an English major.
Frick even that retired air force general CNN used as commentator was completely clueless about firearms when they put him to shooting range to screech about military grade semi-automatic assault rifles.
Journalist being right about something is usually accidental. I think it is against journalistic ethics use journalists that know their subject to report on it or something.
Because one person can't have in depth enough technical knowledge about everything to withstand nitpicking mistakes, and news companies can't afford to hire enough people to have in depth knowledge of everything. That gun isn't any worse than some of the stuff I saw brought to the range when I still shot at a public one that regularly had other people there.
>Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this. …
>Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. … You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues.
>You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. …
>In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. … But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. … The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
>t. Michael Crichton
although I feel it's a bit overly cynical. Realistically your knowledge of any issue you aren't personally into and therefore have countless of hours sunk into researching and discussion, along with personal experience in, is regularly going to end up either on various levels of uninformed or misinformed. As I've grown older, I don't understand how someone can feel that they personally have a totally accurate and informed view of every subject or even most of the subjects they come across.
>Why are journalists so clueless about firearms?
It's a mix of things. They have a blatant anti-gun agenda, mixed with the fact that they live extremely padded or insulated lives. They don't live in the hustle and bustle of the ghetto. They have gated communities with extremely high paid local PD 3 minutes away. To them, guns are all scary mass murder machines that only alt right terrorists want. Journalists are why I don't even try to change the minds of stoutly anti-gun types anymore.
They hold no accountability. If a journalist writes a bullshit article, nobody cares. Big boss only cares about number of clicks, translating to money earned. Their spreading of misinformation and lies goes unpunished for the entire duration of their career, as long as they aren't TOO obvious about it.
At least here in my country most journalists are actually paid minimum wage, especially the ones that write on the popular news portals. You simply can't expect the equivalent of a burger flipper to be knowledgeable about ANYTHING.
Because if you are a gun guy you are probably right wing, and if you are right wing you won't get a job in most newsmedia. Journos writing about guns is like hiring Greenpeace guys to write about muscle cars or get people who call themselves 'hen' to write about the civil war. And that is what is happening.
>Handguard mounting system is a meme
this is actually high speed as frick, I saw a man do this in a soldier of fortune magazine once
If it were a KAC RIS which clamps down on the barrel nut it would make a lot more sense, but that's not what that is, that's just a shitty drop in handguard, so it'll be flopping and twisting all over the place
RAS*
The RIS doesn't clamp, I always mix up the two
They scared of what they dont understand
Journalists are natural born liars, at this point they're incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction if the source is another journalist; and it usually is.
because boomer gunnies are stupid, and in "dunking" on libs they adopt the framing and make the arguments for them. How many times have you seen some dumbass boomerposting like "oh they want to ban .223? Haha well they better take my .308 to lmao, I am very smart" or say some shit about how a common deer rifle has so much more terminal velocity and "stopping power" than an AR?
You fricking morons take the bait every time
They live very insulated lives and only report what they are told to. No need for big scary guns when you live in a nice gated community with cops just minutes away. None of them grew up shooting because they were born and raised as passive urbanites and don’t have anywhere to shoot even if they could get guns. Remember that journo that wanted to prove how easy it was to get an AR and he got rejected after the background check?
>that journo that wanted to prove how easy it was to get an AR and he got rejected
lmao actually i think that was a women
real girlboss moment
It’s happened pretty routinely. They go in having no idea how the background checks work answer every question truthfully then are shocked to learn they can’t openly admit to recreational drug use or beat their wives and purchase a firearm while under a restraining order. Last guy threw a tantrum when the gun store employee called him out for hitting women and denied him kek
scum of the earth and since he's my enemy I'm glad it happened to him
>Last guy threw a tantrum when the gun store employee called him out for hitting women and denied him kek
Please source me this so I can laugh
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columnist-fails-gun-check-blames-store-owners
For those that want tldr
>Journo gay named Steinberg because of course it is
>Chicagogay
>Calls lgs to ask if he can run his little experiment
>Rude to customer service over the phone
>Calls it the Valley of Death
>Lies about the amount of sales performed without background checks
>Admits the lgs employees were friendly
>Asks if he can quote one of them and is told no so he quotes him and says that this is him not quoting him
>Is declined based on his history of alcohol abuse and beating his wife
>Reeees incoherently because he thinks it’s because he’s a journalist and not an insufferable b***h
>Says most people that buy guns are alcoholics that beat their wives
>LGS contact his employer and explain exactly why he was denied and how much of a c**t he was being
i really doubt the photographer set up that rifle if that's what you mean
Journalists are clueless about almost everything.
>clueless about firearms?
>Journalists are clueless about almost everything
^This. They at best get expensive degrees in fiction and gossip writing, rather than being an investigator, researcher, or in building expertise in any field. At worst they are simply indoctrinated into writing about approved political opinions. Add on top of that, most media outlets are compromised by corporate sponsors and political partisanship.
Real, basic journalism is not difficult or complicated. Covering technical or large topics can be a challenge.
>They at best get expensive degrees in fiction and gossip writing,
Literally this
Modern news is all disconnected, decontextualized, sensationalist shit
To get well written and thoroughly investigated journalism you'd have to go before the TV was invented at least, before the telegraph for its peak
>Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this. …
>Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. … You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues.
>You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. …
>In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. … But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. … The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
>t. Michael Crichton
absolutely based anon, I would expect nothing less
This
The industry knows this and doesn't care. All they want is clicks and ad revenue. The rot includes supposedly expert papers like FT and WSJ. I once asked a journo friend at a reputable paper if I could join him, bring my technical expertise to his paper and bump up the quality in its business pages a tad. He said there's no point, they wouldn't pay any extra anyways. And pointed out several "subject matter expert" journos in the paper who had only an English major.
Frick even that retired air force general CNN used as commentator was completely clueless about firearms when they put him to shooting range to screech about military grade semi-automatic assault rifles.
Journalist being right about something is usually accidental. I think it is against journalistic ethics use journalists that know their subject to report on it or something.
monkeys on typewriters and ai generated clickbait
having worked in a newspaper, outside of actors, there is no other group of people who less about more things than fricking journalists.
bc journalists are spooks and news is a social
engineering distribution system
bell curve moment!
Because one person can't have in depth enough technical knowledge about everything to withstand nitpicking mistakes, and news companies can't afford to hire enough people to have in depth knowledge of everything. That gun isn't any worse than some of the stuff I saw brought to the range when I still shot at a public one that regularly had other people there.
This. Also a bit of this:
although I feel it's a bit overly cynical. Realistically your knowledge of any issue you aren't personally into and therefore have countless of hours sunk into researching and discussion, along with personal experience in, is regularly going to end up either on various levels of uninformed or misinformed. As I've grown older, I don't understand how someone can feel that they personally have a totally accurate and informed view of every subject or even most of the subjects they come across.
>Why are journalists so clueless about firearms?
It's a mix of things. They have a blatant anti-gun agenda, mixed with the fact that they live extremely padded or insulated lives. They don't live in the hustle and bustle of the ghetto. They have gated communities with extremely high paid local PD 3 minutes away. To them, guns are all scary mass murder machines that only alt right terrorists want. Journalists are why I don't even try to change the minds of stoutly anti-gun types anymore.
Journalists are clueless about everything. So are politicians.
that's not too bad. the front sight is that way around because it wouldn't properly fit otherwise... don't see why it wouldn't work.
This should be obvious to just about anyone, it pains me that it has to be said.
Not him, but Magpul polymer front sights are known for melting when installed on railed gas blocks.
They hold no accountability. If a journalist writes a bullshit article, nobody cares. Big boss only cares about number of clicks, translating to money earned. Their spreading of misinformation and lies goes unpunished for the entire duration of their career, as long as they aren't TOO obvious about it.
At least here in my country most journalists are actually paid minimum wage, especially the ones that write on the popular news portals. You simply can't expect the equivalent of a burger flipper to be knowledgeable about ANYTHING.
Because if you are a gun guy you are probably right wing, and if you are right wing you won't get a job in most newsmedia. Journos writing about guns is like hiring Greenpeace guys to write about muscle cars or get people who call themselves 'hen' to write about the civil war. And that is what is happening.