House Rejects Effort on Rifle Restriction


PDA






TheDutchman
June 17, 2005, 08:27 AM
WASHINGTON The National Rifle Association and its allies in the House beat back an effort Thursday to restrict gun manufacturers' exports of high-powered, .50-caliber rifles that can bring down jet airliners from a mile away.

By a 278-149 vote, the House killed an amendment by Rep. James Moran to block .50-caliber exports to civilians. He said the guns are dream weapons for terrorists.

"These are unparalleled weapons, and I'm not trying to restrict them in the United States," said Moran, D-Va. "I just don't want them sold by arms dealers."

But gun rights advocates, with backing from the powerful NRA, turned aside the amendment.

The vote came as the House wrapped up a three-day debate and passed by 418-7 a $57.5 billion spending bill for NASA and the departments of Commerce, State and Justice for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

The Senate has yet to act on the bill.

Supporters of gun rights said the government already has ample authority to block the export of .50-caliber weapons.

"This amendment is not going to address illegal sales," said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.

The .50-caliber rifle is the most powerful firearm in wide circulation. It can penetrate thick steel used to armor personnel carriers and is accurate at distances greater than a mile. Moran said that if someone were to use the weapons from such distances, he easily would evade law enforcement.

The risks associated with .50-caliber weapons gained attention this year after CBS' "60 Minutes" aired a report demonstrating the ease with which .50-caliber rifles could be exported to overseas militias.

But the NRA said the amendment was an unnecessary infringement on gun rights and that existing laws provide penalties for smuggling the rifles.

"There are literally dozens of gun laws on the books with very severe implications and penalties that were violated on that ("60 Minutes) show," said Chris W. Cox, the top lobbyist for the NRA.

The underlying bill provides the full $16.5 billion request by Bush for NASA, an almost 2 percent increase over this year.

It increases the Justice Department's budget by $790 million over current levels, an almost 4 percent increase.

The measure rejects big cuts proposed by Bush to Justice Department grants programs for state and local law enforcement agencies, but still leaves those programs almost $400 million below current levels.

The bill cuts Bush's request for the State Department by $251 million to $9 billion. Lawmakers are moving to trim the president's requests for defense and foreign aid-related spending and restore Bush-proposed cuts in domestic programs.

If you enjoyed reading about "House Rejects Effort on Rifle Restriction" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
June 17, 2005, 09:53 AM
of high-powered, .50-caliber rifles that can bring down jet airliners from a mile away. I love the way they say this as if it is indisputable fact. :barf: Gives us such great evidence of media bias in a "news story" that is not supposed to include commentry. The leftist "journalists" who are better at this slip it in as a quote from someone who is identified in a different paragraph.

Onmilo
June 17, 2005, 10:18 AM
"Limit Exports to civilians"

What the hell does that mean?
Since very, very few countries even allow "civilians" to own any type of firearm much less a firearm that uses a machinegun cartridge I don't see where this desire for restriction of export is so necessary.

With the exception of Osama Bin laden and a very few other mega billionaire "civilians", the Intelligence community has determined that weapons of mass destruction and the outfitting of terrorists, does not come from the civilian community directly but from entities and organizations, many or most of which operate with governmental approval in whatever country they choose to set up operation.

This whole thing sounds like a fluff over.
"'See we are trying to do our part but them durned legislators just won't let us!'

Waffen
June 17, 2005, 10:22 AM
Just once I wish they would show what something looks like at a mile through even a high powered scope. They make it sound like any idiot could kill somebody at a mile. :barf:

Third_Rail
June 17, 2005, 10:24 AM
That's the point.

benEzra
June 17, 2005, 12:54 PM
Can anybody do a quick calculation of the time of flight of a .50 BMG bullet to a range of 1 mile? I'd like to know how many hundred yards you'd have to lead the plane by, even if the plane is only doing 200 knots...not to mention the difficulty with range estimation (guess the range wrong by 100 yards and you probably have a clean miss...)

That statement about shooting down a plane from a mile away is just asinine... :banghead:

dolanp
June 17, 2005, 01:14 PM
Those anti-gun politicians are clever, you have to give them that. They coined that phrase by continually repeating it over and over to the uninformed masses and now it is held as fact.

mpthole
June 17, 2005, 01:18 PM
Can anybody do a quick calculation of the time of flight of a .50 BMG bullet to a range of 1 mile?Using the JBM calculator (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/traj/traj.html), which only goes out to 1,000 yards and a target lead maximum of 100 mph, you'd have to lead the target approximately ~248 feet. Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions going on. Adding another 760 yards and a faster target speed to calculate lead time would obviously increase the numbers dramatically. Plus, would the plan be climbing or descending...?

I just took a guestimate from the last time I chrono'd some rounds in my M99 and used the default values for the rest.
Muzzle velocity ~2650
BC ~.5 (?)
Bullet weight ~650
Sight Height ~2.25"
Target speed: 100 mph
Range: 1000 yards

CZ 75 BD
June 17, 2005, 01:20 PM
Source, please.

Zak Smith
June 17, 2005, 02:02 PM
For ball ammo with a MV of 2660fps, the time of flight to 1750 yards (10 yards shy of 1 mile) is 3.20 seconds. Total drop is about 118 FEET, or 22.50 MILs (77 MOA). Every 10mph of wind drifts the bullet almost 18 FEET.

For a 100 mph target speed, that's about 470 feet of target lead, or almost 90 MILS of lead.

jefnvk
June 17, 2005, 02:25 PM
guess the range wrong by 100 yards and you probably have a clean miss

Also, don't forget about the fact that not only do you have to lead the plane, you gotta calculate if it has verticle movement as well, i.e. landing or taking off.

Many ducks at 30 yards have evaded my shotgun because of that.

Tankcommander
June 17, 2005, 02:55 PM
Any vets remember their training on engaging aircraft. You were suposed to lead a chopper by a half a football field and a fast mover by a full football field. That was firing a machine gun. The idea was to put up a cone of fire for the plane to fly though not aim at it.

One shot at a mile? They are idiots. Also there is some doubt that a stinger could take down a lage airliner without a lucky hit. What will one 50cal do unless its a "golden BB"

TC

Car Knocker
June 17, 2005, 03:07 PM
CZ 75 BD,

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SUPER_RIFLES?SITE=UTSAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

dleong
June 17, 2005, 03:52 PM
The National Rifle Association and its allies in the House beat back an effort Thursday to restrict gun manufacturers' exports of high-powered, .50-caliber rifles that can bring down jet airliners from a mile away.
Oh gawd, here we go again....

Next thing you'll know, these "journalists" will be claiming that the 50 cal. rifles can shoot down satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

Is fact-checking no longer a prerequisite for being a journalist?


DL

foghornl
June 17, 2005, 03:57 PM
I can't even see a mile! (Coke-bottle glasses smiley needed here)

I would like to challenge those that come up with this 'shoot a plane down a mile away' steaming pile. My challenge...

When you get good at skeet/trap/sporting clays (22 or better out of 25), swap in a couple of things. Switch to a .22LR rifle, move the clays thrower/firing line out to 100 yards, and see how many you hit.

It is all I can do to hit a non-moving clay @100 Yds with a .22LR. Can't imagine how many shots it would take to hit a thrown clay @ 100Yds.


Can you say a railroad car of .22LR ? ? ?

TallPine
June 17, 2005, 04:27 PM
Can you imagine the arms on a guy that can swing a 50 cal ????? :what:

Those things weight what ... 25 to 30 pounds ?

LaVere
June 17, 2005, 04:33 PM
Have the guys on myth Busters try it out. May be just on a an empty car 1 mile way. :rolleyes:

Third_Rail
June 17, 2005, 04:57 PM
LaVere, that's actually a really, really good idea. I think I'll send an e-mail.

Standing Wolf
June 17, 2005, 07:10 PM
Next thing you'll know, these "journalists" will be claiming that the 50 cal. rifles can shoot down satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

Shhhhhhh! Please don't feed the animals!

Sergeant Sabre
June 17, 2005, 10:55 PM
For a 100 mph target speed, that's about 470 feet of target lead, or almost 90 MILS of lead.

90 mils? Do most scopes even have a 180 mil field of view (90 mils on each side of point-of-impact) so that you could even SEE the target you were shooting at? And what about a 200mph target? 180 mils of lead, I assume. The numbers suggest what we all know already, this is an impossible shot.

Randy in Arizona
June 17, 2005, 11:37 PM
Rep. James Moran

I thought it was James Moron, or was it James Maroon? :confused:

chopinbloc
June 18, 2005, 06:34 AM
okay, after a little poking around, it seems to be basically impossible to write the author about this article. i knew there was something fishy about the ap. i will write the newspaper linked to earlier, but i'd prefer to write the ap and the "journalist" who wrote the piece.

to write to this paper: mailto:letters@desnews.com

MountainPeak
June 18, 2005, 08:25 AM
Henry Bowman, nailed it!!

GlenJ
June 18, 2005, 11:39 AM
Moran said that if someone were to use the weapons from such distances, he easily would evade law enforcement.

So no one would hear a .50 cal rifle where it was fired from?? Moron!!!

Yooper
June 18, 2005, 11:58 AM
So a 50 caliber round can drop an airliner with one shot. The possibility can't be ruled out, but what is the probability of that event occurring? First, how many individuals are capable of hitting an airliner at a mile distant? Of those, how many are inclined to shoot down an airliner? Then, how often will an airliner succumb to a single shot?

natedog
June 18, 2005, 12:03 PM
Let's say you actually hit the jet at one mile away (probability: 0.000000000000000000000000000000001). What kind of damage would it do? Would one 1/2" whole through an engine cause enough damage to bring it down? Fuel tank? Control lines? Would it even pierce the skin?

shermacman
June 18, 2005, 12:18 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen!
We need to take Representative James Moran (D-Barking Moonbat) seriously! He has a great deal of familiarity with gun crimes. After all, he had to live through the terror of being confronted by an eight-year old boy, who pointed his finger at Moran! According to Moran, the child threatened to shoot him, with his finger and further threatened to steal his car.

Moran took the threat seriously. The boy's mother is suing Moran for "manhandling" her son.

So, there you have it, Moran, a tough man facing a tough subject. There is no difference between a .50 rifle and a child's finger.

Neither one can shoot down a jet...~

If you enjoyed reading about "House Rejects Effort on Rifle Restriction" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!