CHRISTIE VETOS!

[Vlad G 345]

 

 

As an example...........maybe I shouldn't but..take for instance the bulk fuel farm at JFKIA.......full of aviation fuel......hmmmm  some well placed rounds into that facility could do some damage....no?

 

 

 

So .. how much damage can those things take anyway? I'm guessing AP .308 will probably go through them anyway.

 

 

 

 

So let me ask you....  If I drill a 50BMG round through an airliner sitting and waiting to taxi at EWR...whaddya think is going to happen...?  You dont think the airliner is effectively 'destroyed'.....?

 

 

It might not even notice depending of where it was hit. We've seen airliners crash land and be rebuilt and returned to flight status. We had geese take out engines and the planes were not 'destroyed'.  I know the 50cal was used in air-to-air combat but mostly against tiny and fragile planes with no backups for most controls and systems, and half the time made of wood and cloth. A modern airliner is a completely different beast.

 

Take a look at this plane:

 

 

That was in flight decompression, the plane turned around, landed and was repaired and went back into service.

 

A .50 cal bullet may be the hammer of Thor against small things but airliners are very big things.

[mipafox 438]

 

Well let's put it this way....we can agree to disagree....  isn't that the old adage....  I am not trying to make a case for him but I think you are being a bit defensive with regard to it...

Not being defensive at all.

 

 

So let me ask you....  If I drill a 50BMG round through an airliner sitting and waiting to taxi at EWR...whaddya think is going to happen...?  You dont think the airliner is effectively 'destroyed'.....?

 

Not sure I understand the question. Would a .50 caliber round going through a commercial airliner destroy it? Probably not.

 

And, you should go back to what I originally said. You are shifting the discussion because you don;t like the outcome.

 

I will disagree with you at oil and gas refineries...........I think you are minimizing the actual impact it can and would have......

 

Minimizing the impact of what? I'd like an example. I'm talking about real events. You are... I have no idea what you are doing.

 

Why are your panties in a bunch......?

You disagreed with me and that was fine, why is me disagreeing with you getting my panties in a bunch? Do you have some sort of monopoly on disagreement?

 

I am not claiming to be an expert...I however, still maintain there is truth in what he has stated .....  Also having worked in an industry that has provided detection to

various fuel storage and refining locations....I find it odd that so many of them employ flame and spark detection systems..........as the earliest detection means for fire sensing... 

 

Eh...why would they do that...the sites are perfectly safe and there are no flammable gases or liquids....  your right...

I understand you are not an expert, that's fine. You are, however, asking the right person. Do you want an answer or was that rhetorical? I'm afraid if I answer the question it means my panties are in a bunch again.

 

your right... someone with a 50BMG rifle and incendiary rounds pose no threat to a refinery, bulk fuel farms natural gas tankers on rail etc...let alone the rifle being able to detonate onsite fuels and cause destructive explosions as a result of leaking fuels gases etc...

I said that?

 

Talk about getting defensive and getting your panties in a bunch. Not to mention putting words in somebody's mouth.

 

There's only one person here getting emotional and defensive. I don't think it's necessary. It's not like we are trying to achieve conflicting purposes.

[djg0770 481]

We have let "them" frame the discussion for decades. If someone came out with a pro life vs pro death platform who exactly would but into the pro death platform? If we came out with a pro freedom vs pro tyranny platform and effectively articulated the platform... There would be no counter.

 

Instead we let them talk about common sense gun laws.

[gunguy1960 2]

50 caliber bmg ammo for sale

[ryan_j 0]

I think the point about the .50cal ban is that it is very rarely ever used for any crimes. Sure, it can be used for terrorism, but I don't think it can be reliably used to shoot down aircraft. Besides, what's stopping someone from hijacking a plane and using that to crash into high value targets? It's not like anyone has done that before... and don't say the TSA because guns and bomb parts have been getting onto planes despite the TSA's best efforts.

 

But yes, the .50cal is destructive. As is .60 and anything else. As are antique cannons, which are OK with FID because they are "historic" weapons.

[MeanderingCuban 8]

I still think sweenys bill will be back. And you will see a fid needed to buy all ammo.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I have to agree with this statement. We have not heard the last of Sweeney's Bill and then more to come

[JayM26 0]

Makes me feel better....now can NJ just fix this damn delay for my FID and P2P's please!!!!! Hitting 3 month mark for heavens sake!

[halbautomatisch 60]

We have let "them" frame the discussion for decades. If someone came out with a pro life vs pro death platform who exactly would but into the pro death platform? If we came out with a pro freedom vs pro tyranny platform and effectively articulated the platform... There would be no counter.

 

Instead we let them talk about common sense gun laws.

I'm not sure we are the ones letting "them" frame the conversation. It's more like the liberal media has refused to allow us to adequately present our arguments or made us look like nut cases while doing it. The internet has changed all that, the liberal media no longer has exclusive control over what information the public receives.

[ryan_j 0]

I have to agree with this statement. We have not heard the last of Sweeney's Bill and then more to come

 

 

Even if it passes, it's harmless. If you don't want to end up in the little NJSP black book buy your ammo in PA. 

 

I agree about more to come though. But we need to give Sweeney the boot in November, and as many others as we possibly can. There are some strategies to do so, and sending the right message to the hunters is a must. 

[CMJeepster 2,777]

But yes, the .50cal is destructive. As is .60 and anything else.

Like the geese that brought down Captain Sullenberger's plane...

[Parker 213]

  

 

Don't need to do any research. I lead a team that performed Security Vulnerability Assessments on dozens of DPCC and TSCA/TCPA facilities in NJ after Corzine signed the executive oder accelerating the requirement. Dozens out of a total of 144 that met the requirement in NJ at the time. So, a good chunk of what exists.

 

The guy says they were designed to destroy chemical plants and commercial airliners. That's complete hogwash and alarmist bs.

 

So, would shooting a bulk fuel Tank Farm cause some damage? It certainly could. Well placed rounds at an oil refinery? Doubtful.

 

But, in either case, how many people working at oil refineries or petroleum terminals usually die when there are catastrophic calamities that destroy large portions of the facility? The average number is less than one. Hundreds of civilians? No, more like zero.

 

For a guy that knows so much about these things, you don't do a very good job at "research." And certainly not at picking targets

 

The Texas City disaster in 1947 claimed more than 500 lives. While it initially involved munitions on a ship in port, it impacted oil storage facilities as well. I believe this is still labeled the deadliest industrial accident in U.S. history.

 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/lyt01

[mikelets456 78]

Very well said Nickjc.  We too often see gun rights advocates distorting the facts in order to counter the antis' propaganda.  In the wrong hands. a .50 cal barrett presents a greater risk than a .308 for example.  It has a significantly longer range and signicantly more terminal energy.  Similarly, a 30 round magazine does present more of a risk in the hands of a madman than a 10 round magazine.  Yes, someone with training can swap mags pretty quickly, but having a larger capacity magazine potentially makes a shooter marginally more lethal.  If that weren't the case why would we care about owning normal capacity 20 or 30 round magazines.  They are more effective -- both when used for good or for evil.

 

We don't need to distort the facts to make our arguments:  While a .50 cal is marginally more "dangerous" in the hands of someone intent on evil, it has legitiamte civilian uses and can be seen to be in "common use" to us SCOTUS's language.  Even more clearly, semi-automatic rifles and normal capacity mags are most definitely in common use for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense.  That is really the end of the analysis.

 

The key word...intent on evil. In Africa millions are killed by machetes, car bombs, bombs, knives, etc, etc, etc. The problem is not guns or the type of guns. The problems is power and evil...that's it. However, in about a 100 year time period over 200 MILLION innocent people were slayed via genocide and corrupt warfare. If they had the means of defending themselves I am certain the casualties would not be be [even] close to what's listed.

 

Confiscate all firearms, melt them all down and I guarantee even more innocent lives will be taken. 

 

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery---Thomas Jefferson.

[ryan_j 0]

Like the geese that brought down Captain Sullenberger's plane...

 

Yep. Like the box cutters that brought down the WTC and part of the pentagon. 

[Njgunowner 2]

The problem is 

 

Even if it passes, it's harmless. If you don't want to end up in the little NJSP black book buy your ammo in PA. 

 

I agree about more to come though. But we need to give Sweeney the boot in November, and as many others as we possibly can. There are some strategies to do so, and sending the right message to the hunters is a must. 

 

I wouldn't say harmless. They'll push for it on out of state and internet sales in an attempt at a defacto sales ban for out of state purchases. 

[n4p226r 105]

Even if it passes, it's harmless. If you don't want to end up in the little NJSP black book buy your ammo in PA. 

 

I agree about more to come though. But we need to give Sweeney the boot in November, and as many others as we possibly can. There are some strategies to do so, and sending the right message to the hunters is a must.

 

Giving Sweeney the boot would be great. But then just imagine who is going to be the head of the senate.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Giving Sweeney the boot would be great. But then just imagine who is going to be the head of the senate.

 

Yes, pretty sure it wouldn't be Van Drew.

[voyager9 3,434]

So let me ask you....  If I drill a 50BMG round through an airliner sitting and waiting to taxi at EWR...whaddya think is going to happen...?  You dont think the airliner is effectively 'destroyed'.....?

 

I'd call that 'disabled'.. in that it can't fly.  Not 'destroyed' in the "OMG, the burning!"-sense.   The word destroyed was used because it brings up a specific mental picture by most of the public, largely thanks to TV/movies.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Is it just me, or does this discussion of the capabilities of a .50 BMG weapon completely miss the point?  Say a terrorist really wanted to use one of these to attempt to take down an airliner or a chemical plant.  What would be the chances that he would apply for an FID card, wait six months or so while his application is processed; then walk into a gun store, put a down payment on a Barrett; wait for it to come in; then go through a NICS check?

 

Seems like it would be a lot easier to pick up something like that on the black market.  The only ones willing to go through that whole process above would be one of us.

[djg0770 481]

Is it just me, or does this discussion of the capabilities of a .50 BMG weapon completely miss the point? Say a terrorist really wanted to use one of these to attempt to take down an airliner or a chemical plant. What would be the chances that he would apply for an FID card, wait six months or so while his application is processed; then walk into a gun store, put a down payment on a Barret; wait for it to come in; then go through a NICS check?

 

Seems like it would be a lot easier to pick up something like that on the black market. The only ones willing to go through that whole process above would be one of us.

+1

[plode 0]

Bryan Miller is at it again:

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

[CMJeepster 2,777]

His brother was gunned down in a police station?  Geez, if you're not safe there, where are you safe?

 

P.S., extra style points for conducting such a serious press conference in shorts (see photo.)

[ryan_j 0]

It was in the 90s and I believe it was a Federal building. They didn't have any armed security or metal detectors back then. 

[CMJeepster 2,777]

It was in the 90s and I believe it was a Federal building. They didn't have any armed security or metal detectors back then.

 

The Federal Building in Oklahoma could have used some fertilizer detectors outside and I'm willing to bet that a hell of a lot more lives were lost in that incident.

[Bob2222 316]

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/24/us/suspect-in-washington-shootings-had-past-weapons-convictions.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/23/us/4-at-police-center-in-washington-die-as-gunfire-erupts.html

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/hallhonor/miller