nj.com at it again...

[AlDente67 563]

Saw an opinion piece in the Asbery park press complaining the NJ2AS complaining about the raffle and oh this raffle is making all gun owners look like gun nuts, and how gun owners need to work with gun control advocates to solve the very real problem of gun violence and get guns off the streets...

The article made me want to punch the author in the face for being so stupid, because it was quite clear the author was one of those that believed any gun control idea was a good idea, while trying to pretend to be neutral.

 

Ok fine (Mister Asbury Press writer), so I have nothing better to do and desire to work with gun control advocates to fix this problem.  Where do we start?  Maybe a stop and frisk operation in Camden?  None of my guns are on the street (I checked), so it must be them.

 

Typical "journalist".  I don't "need" to work with anyone.  I legally purchase and maintain my guns.  How about this guy "working" with someone on his own time?  Sheesh!

[M1152 713]

.... nj.com is still at it

[voyager9 3,434]

.... nj.com is still at it

That author puts the ouch in douche.

[M1152 713]

That author puts the ouch in douche.

Yep, Trenton Times editorial. The Trenton Times always did have a left tilt. Back in the old days the Trentonain use to provide the balance but then they went off the deep-end by going into full tabloid mode. it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Love the Gov or hate him he’s a shrewd politician and a media whore. He is up for re-election so does he do the right thing and veto the remaining bills or does he pander to the libs and throw 2A rights under the bus for an Attaboy on NJ.Com ?

[M1152 713]

dupe

[Bob2222 317]

He is up for re-election so does he do the right thing and veto the remaining bills or does he pander to the libs and throw 2A rights under the bus for an Attaboy on NJ.Com ?

 

The Trenton Times endorsed Corzine in 2009 so the odds are they won't endorse him no matter what he does. An attaboy from NJ.com is worth less than nothing. It will encourage the 2A supporters to stay home and not win over any liberal voters.

 

Maybe the Times editorial board feels confident that he'll veto the bills, but want to produce a record before they endorse Buono, and before she loses in a landslide.

 

I am not comfortable that Christie will veto all of the remaining bills, starting with the .50 BMG ban bill that he says he favors. I think he might still "conditionally" veto Sweeney's bill, though.

 

BTW has anyone ever managed to hit a moving airplane target with a .50 BMG Barrett rifle? Not from an M2 -- 1 round shot from a rifle? Seems like an incredible shot.

[Melgamatic 66]

 

BTW has anyone ever managed to hit a moving airplane target with a .50 BMG Barrett rifle? Not from an M2 -- 1 round shot from a rifle? Seems like an incredible shot.

 

No, this has never happened, at least in the US.

[JSF01 13]

No, this has never happened, at least in the US.

I am pretty sure that has not happed any where in the world, though I do know for sure a 50 cal rifle has never brought down an airplane any where in the world

[plode 0]

I am pretty sure that has not happed any where in the world, though I do know for sure a 50 cal rifle has never brought down an airplane any where in the world

 

Well most commercial airplanes fly around 33,000 feet.  The average 50BMG round travels at under 3,000fps.  That is about 11 seconds just for the round to get on target.  The average cruising speed of an Airbus A320(the most common plane I've flown on) is mach .78 which is roughly 594 mph, or 872 fps. So some how you would have to calculate the proper lead time without knowing the actual speed or altitude on the plane.  Speaking of altitude, with a plane at cruising altitude-That is a 6.25 mile shot which I don't think any sniper in the world could pull off(I don't think any have done a shot at half that distance with a stationary target) That's IF the bullet would even travel that far.  I think it would fall back to land before traveling that far.  You also have bullet drop, wind, and other weather factors. 

 

That being said, even during take off or approach planes are still moving several hundred miles per hour.  

 

 

In other words, IMO the "shoot down a plane" defense is a load of crap.  This is why you see the videos and photos of the anti-aircraft guns shooting thousands of rounds at planes and still missing.

[Malice4you 627]

But they used .50s in B-17s in WWII to shoot down aircraft, so it must be that all .50s are deadly black assault military anti-aircraft assault rifles with deadly magazine clips.

 

 

I thought at one point they said this was about terrorism, what with all the dangerous chemical storage containers in NJ...  Not that it matters if the terrorists use a .50, in NJ, we got em beat, since we poison ourselves...

[carguy3j 0]

Well most commercial airplanes fly around 33,000 feet.  The average 50BMG round travels at under 3,000fps.  That is about 11 seconds just for the round to get on target.  The average cruising speed of an Airbus A320(the most common plane I've flown on) is mach .78 which is roughly 594 mph, or 872 fps. So some how you would have to calculate the proper lead time without knowing the actual speed or altitude on the plane.  Speaking of altitude, with a plane at cruising altitude-That is a 6.25 mile shot which I don't think any sniper in the world could pull off(I don't think any have done a shot at half that distance with a stationary target) That's IF the bullet would even travel that far.  I think it would fall back to land before traveling that far.  You also have bullet drop, wind, and other weather factors. 

 

That being said, even during take off or approach planes are still moving several hundred miles per hour.  

 

 

In other words, IMO the "shoot down a plane" defense is a load of crap.  This is why you see the videos and photos of the anti-aircraft guns shooting thousands of rounds at planes and still missing.

 

I agree that shooting down an airplane at cruising altitude, with any rifle, is just about impossible. I THINK the world record for a confirmed sniper kill shot is about 1.5 miles. I'm pretty sure that's what I saw on one of those Discovery/History/Military Channel shows recently. I believe it was a Canadian sniper, a few years ago in Afghanistan. However, I also seemto recall reading/hearing that a .50 cal sniper rifle is anti-materiel effective to a much shorter range then it is capable of killing a person. Makes sense, as it takes more energy at impact to punch through an engine block, then  through flesh and bone.

 

On the other hand, on take off and landing, an aircraft is much more vulnerable. While I see your point, as far as takeoff/landings still being at high speed, if the sniper were positioned in a fairly direct line to the nose or tail, "lead" becomes irrelevant. If he/she were positioned facing the nose of the aircraft, it gets even easier, as the range is constantly decreasing, and the plane would basically fly into the bullet. Which, incidentally (at least in my novice opinion), would appear to dramatically increase the impact energy, as the speed of the aircraft itself would have the same effect as if it were stationary, and the bullet were going that much faster.

 

So, a .50cal rifle could probably easily take out a large aircraft at a critical point on takeoff or landing, which would then result in loss of control/crash. In some cases (such as an aircraft loaded to near max takeoff weight), losing even a single engine, or even a partial loss of power in that one engine, even in a multi engined plane, could be immediately catastrophic and unrecoverable.

 

Now, that said, a .30-06, a .308, or even a lucky well placed .22 (say getting sucked into the engine inlet), could do the same. They key is the correct placement/location of the sniper, in that "head-on" orientation to an active runway, as well as being close enough. That falls to airport security,etc... to keep unauthorized people out of sensitive areas; which they should already be doing anyway. There is already a pretty big "no-go" buffer zone both on, and surrounding airport property, at most if not all, major airports. All they need to do is keep people far enough away from the runways, in a direct line, for as long of a distance as possible and/or shield it with trees/secured buildings and other visual obstructions which would impeded a sniper from having clean shot. Yes, the planes need a certain amount of open space, but I doubt they need 1.5 miles at both ends of the runway.......  Realistically, there are probably only a handful of people in the world who would have a chance in hell of making that shot anyway, and most, if not all, of them are us/our allies/work for countries who wouldn't do this (I'm sure there are some great Russian snipers, but I don't see Russia trying to shoot down a commercial airliner on American soil) So, realistically, a 3/4 to 1mile buffer is more then enough.

 

No need whatsoever to ban a rifle that very few people can afford, very few people could use effectively, in this manner, even if they were given the rifle for free, and that terrorists would find a way to get anyway in spite of a ban, if they really wanted one bad enough.

[JSF01 13]

Just want to point out that I never thought that it was remotely likely to shoot down a plan while flying, but like how carguy here says on take of and landing a plane is a little more vulnerable. While I know that know airplane has ever been shot down by a .50 cal rifle, I cant say for sure that, while unlikely, some sort of plane some where in the world some how got hit by a .50 cal fired by rifle.    

I agree that shooting down an airplane at cruising altitude, with any rifle, is just about impossible. I THINK the world record for a confirmed sniper kill shot is about 1.5 miles. I'm pretty sure that's what I saw on one of those Discovery/History/Military Channel shows recently. I believe it was a Canadian sniper, a few years ago in Afghanistan. However, I also seemto recall reading/hearing that a .50 cal sniper rifle is anti-materiel effective to a much shorter range then it is capable of killing a person. Makes sense, as it takes more energy at impact to punch through an engine block, then  through flesh and bone.

 

On the other hand, on take off and landing, an aircraft is much more vulnerable. While I see your point, as far as takeoff/landings still being at high speed, if the sniper were positioned in a fairly direct line to the nose or tail, "lead" becomes irrelevant. If he/she were positioned facing the nose of the aircraft, it gets even easier, as the range is constantly decreasing, and the plane would basically fly into the bullet. Which, incidentally (at least in my novice opinion), would appear to dramatically increase the impact energy, as the speed of the aircraft itself would have the same effect as if it were stationary, and the bullet were going that much faster.

 

So, a .50cal rifle could probably easily take out a large aircraft at a critical point on takeoff or landing, which would then result in loss of control/crash. In some cases (such as an aircraft loaded to near max takeoff weight), losing even a single engine, or even a partial loss of power in that one engine, even in a multi engined plane, could be immediately catastrophic and unrecoverable.

 

Now, that said, a .30-06, a .308, or even a lucky well placed .22 (say getting sucked into the engine inlet), could do the same. They key is the correct placement/location of the sniper, in that "head-on" orientation to an active runway, as well as being close enough. That falls to airport security,etc... to keep unauthorized people out of sensitive areas; which they should already be doing anyway. There is already a pretty big "no-go" buffer zone both on, and surrounding airport property, at most if not all, major airports. All they need to do is keep people far enough away from the runways, in a direct line, for as long of a distance as possible and/or shield it with trees/secured buildings and other visual obstructions which would impeded a sniper from having clean shot. Yes, the planes need a certain amount of open space, but I doubt they need 1.5 miles at both ends of the runway.......  Realistically, there are probably only a handful of people in the world who would have a chance in hell of making that shot anyway, and most, if not all, of them are us/our allies/work for countries who wouldn't do this (I'm sure there are some great Russian snipers, but I don't see Russia trying to shoot down a commercial airliner on American soil) So, realistically, a 3/4 to 1mile buffer is more then enough.

 

No need whatsoever to ban a rifle that very few people can afford, very few people could use effectively, in this manner, even if they were given the rifle for free, and that terrorists would find a way to get anyway in spite of a ban, if they really wanted one bad enough.

One thing you are forgetting is while many antis will say that a .50 bmg rifle can bring down a plane and happily let people think they mean jet airliners. If  however one of the people in the group that the anti is telling this supposed fact too questions it, many of them will than clarify they are talking about small planes. So when consider small private planes on take of and landing that may be doable by a very good sniper. Of course when you are talking about a plane that small, a terrorist sniper is not going to waste his time firing an extremely large, expensive, and loud rifle, that he would have to pretty much abandon as soon as he fires a shot if he wants to escape before police arrive, for the small chance he would even hit the plane, much less shoot it down, and kill if he is extremely lucky maybe 4 people. 

 

That sniper record happened in 2002. It has since been beaten by a British sniper in 2009 with a .338 lapua at a distance of 1.53 miles (49 yards farther)

[plode 0]

NJ.com and Cryan Bryan are at it again:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/gun_control_advocates_protest_christie_vetoes.html

[voyager9 3,434]

NJ.com and Cryan Bryan are at it again:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/gun_control_advocates_protest_christie_vetoes.html

 

I like how he's no longer claiming they'll destroy chemical plants.. now they'll simply "knock them over".. I guess that's Godzilla style?

[wooly bugger 1]

I wonder how the "disabled" .50 was disabled. If anything short of a hole drilled through the receiver, whoever brought it should have been arrested unless he had a valid FID.

 

Are people really falling for the "knock over chemical plants" line? Obviously, these guys don't care a hoot about black kids getting gunned down every day in Newark, Trenton, and Camden if they're spending all their energy trying to avert an imaginary disaster.

[Contrvlr 17]

 Obviously, these guys don't care a hoot about black kids getting gunned down every day in Newark, Trenton, and Camden if they're spending all their energy trying to avert an imaginary disaster, by attempting to deny law abiding citizens their 2A rights

Finished it

[Erik 0]

To paraphrase Mark Twain "never argue with an idiot, people walking by might not be able to tell the difference"

 

These people are fricking idiots. They need to be minimized and put in their place. You will never convince them with facts. Ignore them. Ridicule them. Belittle them. Just don't waste time engaging them.