50cal automatic sniper rifles should be banned


PDA






Stingray
August 22, 2005, 06:26 PM
Lookie what I got in the mail. The BS is overwealming

If you enjoyed reading about "50cal automatic sniper rifles should be banned" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dasmi
August 22, 2005, 06:28 PM
Wow. Just wow.

Henry Bowman
August 22, 2005, 06:29 PM
Can't read the fine print. Do they list sources, prices and specs? :p

Third_Rail
August 22, 2005, 06:33 PM
How about someone does a parody?


".22 long rifle rimfire assault weapon caliber ... maximum range 2 miles, capable of shooting down planes.


this .22 long rifle rimfire assault weapon caliber has been used in more killings than all other cartridges combined."


All of which, due to wording and other reasons, is true. Pretty compelling reason to ban .22lr, NOT.

Kjervin
August 22, 2005, 06:34 PM
Not very mobile for a hunting rifle (especially for hunting humans). You would have to hunt over bait (like maybe a dozen burgers or a Ribeye). When does human hunting season start in IL and can I get a non-resident hunting license? :evil:
KJ

Daniel T
August 22, 2005, 06:38 PM
Every single thing on that card was a lie. Amazing that they feel so confident in their propaganda that they'd lie so blatantly.

Really, it's astounding. I'm speechless.

carebear
August 22, 2005, 06:41 PM
So they aren't even showing that which they are protesting?! :rolleyes:

Both the weapons pictured are actual machineguns, Class 3 weapons.

It might be worth a polite, informative, non-aggressive letter to the editor to point out the fallacies. Perhaps call a friendly reporter to cover the misinformation campaign.

Zrex
August 22, 2005, 06:41 PM
How about someone does a parody?


Oh. I thought that WAS the parody. :what:

Standing Wolf
August 22, 2005, 06:46 PM
Oh. I thought that WAS the parody.

It's often impossible to distinguish between leftist extremist "thinking" and satire.

meathammer
August 22, 2005, 06:53 PM
Who exactly mailed you that trash?


--meathammer

scout26
August 22, 2005, 06:56 PM
As a fellow "citizen" of the PDRI. (*)

Pray tell who sent you that ????!!




PDRI - People's Democratic Republic of Illinois.

Stingray
August 22, 2005, 07:07 PM
Here is the inside. It is from State Representative Kathy Ryg

fourays2
August 22, 2005, 07:13 PM
who was responsible for that distorted garbage?

Beemerguy53
August 22, 2005, 07:15 PM
Bill Clinton never inhaled.

Clearly, Kathy Ryg never exhaled...

Stingray
August 22, 2005, 07:40 PM
The most amazing thing to me is that the lies are so jumbled up with actual facts, that I find it hard to determine what exactly she is trying to ban. I guess she just wants the "assault weapon" ban back in effect which doesnt really cover any of the main points that she states.

I also have to wonder if she is just outright lying, if she is just too lazy to do the actual research and find out what she is trying to ban, or if she just doesnt care.

armoredman
August 22, 2005, 07:45 PM
Aghast at the outright bold faced lies that unirmormed citizens will swallow as truth....what a lying peice of (censored, censored, OMG, CENSORED!!!) ! :fire:

DonP
August 22, 2005, 07:47 PM
Fully automatic weapons, as pictured on that mailer, are already illegal here.

Or didn't the lovely representative's staff already figure that out?

More "agitprop" from the anti's desparately looking for a win of any kind to drive the next Brady press release on their continued "success".

They are really sucking air these days with the AWB gone and their local efforts struggling at every level. CCW is passing everywhere else and thankfully there hasn't been a school shooting in years to demonize and roll in the blood.

The Chicago MMM chapter, even in liberal Oak Park, can't find anyone as an organizer for their local Meetups. Heck, I'm one of the most frequent posters on their national Meet Up web site. That's just pathetic.

Oh, for the entertainment value, another frequent poster on their national Meet up message board is "Mother Bear". Gee, now who could that really be?

fistful
August 22, 2005, 07:50 PM
Let me admit my ignorance.

Is it reasonable to use a .50 BMG rifle or machine gun for shooting planes? I seem to remember they have been mounted on planes, so I suppose they could be used to shoot down other planes that way. But would it make sense to try it from the ground? Too slow? I have fired M2's for familiarization prior to my Bosnia tour, but I have no idea what is required for shooting down airplanes.

What is the maximum range or max effective range of the M2?

Laugh away.

Edit: This just in. I am also ignorant of who mother bear would be? Rosy herself?

Beethoven
August 22, 2005, 07:56 PM
Who sent it?

I don't see any return address on it.

Beethoven
August 22, 2005, 08:02 PM
Is it reasonable to use a .50 BMG rifle or machine gun for shooting planes? I seem to remember they have been mounted on planes, so I suppose they could be used to shoot down other planes that way. But would it make sense to try it from the ground? Too slow? I have fired M2's for familiarization prior to my Bosnia tour, but I have no idea what is required for shooting down airplanes.



Someone better informed than I will be along shortly, but in the meantime I'll take a stab at it:

Technically, you could use a .50 (or any rifle for that matter) to shoot at airplanes. Obviously you have the best chance of hitting them when they are at their slowest & lowest: take off & landing.

As to whether a single .50 bullet could damage an airliner enough to bring it down, I doubt it.

Even if you succeeded in getting debilitating hits (I can't see how a single .50 bullet could take down something the size of a commercial airliner), the plane is still a few hundred feet off the ground max, so it could still make it down safely, I'd imagine.

With an M2 automatic .50, I'm sure you could bring down an airliner upon take off or landing, if nothing else by killing both pilot and copilot.

To answer the question: it COULD be done, but it is very, very unlikely, and IMO, impossible to do with anything less than a semi-auto.

Either way, it is not a logically supportable position to advocate banning an item based on what people could do with it.

Lucky
August 22, 2005, 08:15 PM
Wow, I never though about it like that before. Guys, we have to do something. I thought I was made of stone, but her arguments are pretty persuasive.

Come on guys, let's turn all the rifles in. If you need someone brave to take the first step, I guess it will be me. I volunteer.

Now, I'm in Canada, so you will have to mail me your rifle, but I promise it will be destroyed and I'll mail you back pictures of it's little grave, overlooking a scenic mountain.

Do it for families and police officers, do it for humanity.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/54919391/ARs/MeN311y.jpg


By the way, would someone please take one of these pamphlets to the store and present it like a coupon? Seriously, it would be funny.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y149/54919391/propaganda1.jpg

SOFDC
August 22, 2005, 08:16 PM
A .50 in the intake would certainly cause some technical difficulties.

....And so would any other relatively solid object that gets in there. Bullets, birds, RC model aircraft, a metal crossbow bolt, heck, someone sticking their ear-spacer in there.

Matthew748
August 22, 2005, 08:18 PM
What garbage. This seems to be timed to coincide with the upcoming Cook County AWB. There is a thread on that on this board too. I have finally worked myself up to make the move to Indiana. I just hope that the stink of Illinois is not so heavy upon me that I am turned away at the border.

Bruce H
August 22, 2005, 08:28 PM
Here she is boys and girls.
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=94&MemberID=1046

Contact this ignorant oxygen thief and BBQ her.

LAR-15
August 22, 2005, 08:41 PM
She graduated from NIU!

I should of expected that.

Art Eatman
August 22, 2005, 08:45 PM
For part of my tour in Korea, some 50 years back, I was a squad leader on an M16 halftrack with a quad-.50 mount in back. The trigger actuated an electrically controlled solenoid on each gun. The theoretical max rate of fire for each gun was 600 rounds per minute, although the reality was closer to 450 or so.

There were four ammo cans on the turret, each holding two boxes' worth or 210 rounds per gun. The deal was that the two loaders had alternate guns firing at any one time. By firing short bursts and alternating guns, barrel life was much better than long bursts with all four.

The max effective range was said to be 3,500 yards.

The turret wouldn't rotate fast enough for any crossing plane (90 degrees) going above 200 mph, but shame on anything coming pretty much straight in. :)

Guys who'd done a tour in combat said it was a truly wonderful weapon against the Chinese human wave assaults.

Against any airplane, it's no different from deer hunting: Shot placement is what's important. Hits in the cockpit (the pilot is the brain) or in the engine (the heart) are needed to bring it down. There's always the lucky hit against control cables and such, of course.

Basically, though, it's multiple hits in a critical area. A one-shot kill on a commercial airliner would be as close to magic as there is.

Art

silverlance
August 22, 2005, 08:45 PM
someone can fire 550 rounds a minute of bmg on semi-auto! my god! he must have shoulders of concrete...

odysseus
August 22, 2005, 08:49 PM
Just another example of an unknown small time politician trying to ride a purely emotional and uninformed position to try to get their name out there, since no one really cares in the first place. Obviously there isn't any position or action of real substance this politic-o can push, so hey let's push candy for the uninformed liberal. :barf:

Art Eatman
August 22, 2005, 09:01 PM
Has anybody here shot a semi-auto Barrett or other .50? What's the length of time to get back on target, after dealing with the recoil of a shot?

If you're hostile to an airline, you're gonna have to be right at straight in front of the plane. Since it's moving much faster than a car, your lead is gonna be a good bit, and you have to get as many shots off as possiblel--and these must be hits or it's all a big waste of time. And, your time is limited.

I just don't see it as a viable option, really...

Art

dpesec
August 22, 2005, 09:58 PM
anybody look at what this Rep supports. She want to fine business 1000 for each waterball yo-yo they sell. :what:
For those of you who don't know, it's a yo-yo filled with some liquid like water.
I really had to read this a few times to be sure I wasn't mistaken.

deanf
August 22, 2005, 10:05 PM
So what are the makes and models of the guns on that flyer, so that I may be accurate when I write . . . ?

Fletchette
August 22, 2005, 11:01 PM
What really gets my blood boiling is that this idiot runs around with a gaggle of bodyguards...with GUNS! What a hypocritical %&*^$!

Since when is the the Constitution an "excuse"?

:fire: :cuss: :fire:

boofus
August 22, 2005, 11:11 PM
So what are the makes and models of the guns on that flyer, so that I may be accurate when I write . . . ?

The big one is a Browning M2 heavy machinegun. The bottom one looks like a Fabrique Nationale M249 SAW.

Both weapons are covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are heavily taxed and regulated. No civilian can own any of those if they were manufactured after 1986. Only federally licensed dealers, military, law enforcement can legally possess post-1986 MGs. There are very few civilian-ok M249s out there. I heard a rumor that Steven Tyler from Aerosmith has one and he paid around $200,000 for it.

If a FFL is selling those to anyone off the street, that stupid proposed state .50cal ban is going to be the least of their worries. The ATF will likely Waco/Ruby Ridge them once they got word.

The State of Illinois has laws that make possession of any NFA device except Any-Other-Weapon illegal to begin with. What that airhead is suggesting is passing another law to make an already illegal and rare weapon super duper mega-licious bad evil illegal.

I'm betting what the grabbers are aiming at is vague wording in a ".50cal ban" so they can make bolt action .50s and muzzleloaders and common shotguns illegal.

artherd
August 23, 2005, 04:33 AM
Has anybody here shot a semi-auto Barrett or other .50? What's the length of time to get back on target, after dealing with the recoil of a shot?

If you're hostile to an airline, you're gonna have to be right at straight in front of the plane. Since it's moving much faster than a car, your lead is gonna be a good bit, and you have to get as many shots off as possiblel--and these must be hits or it's all a big waste of time. And, your time is limited.

I just don't see it as a viable option, really...


M82-a1 owner here. I'd say it takes about the same time as a lightweight semi .308. Maybe 20% more tops. Ie, largely dependant on range and size of target. The recoil from the Barrett is really not bad at all, less than a 12-gauge.

That said, connecting once with a plane that's not parked would be a shot of the centuary. Even if the plane was coming RIGHT at you, the range calculations alone would have to be so on that the shot would be hugely impracticle withought sustained tracer fire from a belt-fed.

Even then, it took 6 of them wing-mounted to bring down fabric-wing fighters. A 747 in all likelyhood would never even know it had been hit. There's always a lucky shot against something both hard and full of fuel vapors with an API, but again, not very effective.

If I was going to down a civil airliner, a .50cal would be my second-to-last choice slightly ahead of sharp sticks.

200g of symtex does much better acording to the FAA test.

Stingray
August 23, 2005, 07:54 AM
Thanks for all the responses, this woman has her office about 2 miles away. I think I will stop by her office personally to deliver my letter of response. Maybe she will meet with me personally, after all, she is supposed to be my representative.

Matt G
August 23, 2005, 08:20 AM
From my old debate days acronymn of SHIST, by the numbers:

Significance
How many deaths by assault weapons in IL each year, compared with other weapons? Compared with, for example, cars driven by drunk drivers? Or swimming pools? How much effort has Ms. Ryg put into those less-flashy issues of public safety?

Harm
Who is hurt by the mere possession of these firearms?

Inherency
Can she show me anywhere that the possession of these firearms results in the injury or death of others?

Topicality
The People have had 10 years to put a stop to the sunset of the AWB. They did not. The real issue is NOT about saving lives or bringing peace to the streets of the towns and cities of Illinois-- it's about getting Kathy Ryg reellected.

Solvency
Will banning these weapons in Illinois stop murder? No?
Okay, then, will it stop murder by shooting, at least? No?
Well all right then, will it at least stop murder or accidental death by these types of weapons? No?
Then why all the money, attention, and 4-color offset printing? :confused:

oh blanky
August 23, 2005, 10:26 AM
Matt please don't distort this important issues with facts and reason.

xdoctor
August 23, 2005, 04:31 PM
She's right about one thing. On the inside of that pamphlet it says, "She knows that in times like these we need common sense when it comes to gun control."

I agree with that. Common sense would dictate that we look at the laws on the books already, just to see where we stand. Lets start at the top, "Shall not be infringed." Hmm...

Ok, lets rework that to fit the rest of it.

"She knows that in times like these we need subterfuge when it comes to gun control."

There, now it fits her true message. :D

Beethoven
August 23, 2005, 05:42 PM
Has anybody here shot a semi-auto Barrett or other .50? What's the length of time to get back on target, after dealing with the recoil of a shot?

If you're hostile to an airline, you're gonna have to be right at straight in front of the plane. Since it's moving much faster than a car, your lead is gonna be a good bit, and you have to get as many shots off as possiblel--and these must be hits or it's all a big waste of time. And, your time is limited.

I just don't see it as a viable option, really...

Art

1) I haven't shot my .50 yet, but I can tell you that it will take you at LEAST several seconds to get back on target, likely a lot longer.

2) I was going to add that a plane is moving so fast that you'd pretty much have to be DIRECTLY in front of or behind it, and even then you'd need to get VERY close, otherwise it would be simply moving too fast to keep track with and hit accurately.

If you enjoyed reading about "50cal automatic sniper rifles should be banned" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!