Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Jesse Jackson: Assault Rifles Can Shoot Down Airplanes R

Be sure to brief me on how many times you've almost been taken out by hostile ground fire from a single weapon at over 500 meters.. I'm all ears.

Oy! Again with the commercial jets and military situations.

Tearing up a car with a semi-auto .308, which I take it you have not done, is not notable because of the speed of the parked car. It's notable because of the damage the bullets do to little unimportant things like, oh, engine blocks, engine accessories, and need I mention any and all controls and linkages.

Fortunately I have been able to do wonderful and fun things with 5.56, 7.62, .50 cal, even 4.2" mortars and composition explosives. In order for that damage to be done you must FIRST and FOREMOST be able to hit your target and then hit it in the "right" spot. A pencil can kill you but given that FACT I don't see them being used very often as an offensive or defensive weapons.

Have you ever watched a battery of quad mounted 20MM cannon trying to shoot down an RC plane with a 6 foot wingspan at ranges less than 500 meters? It took more than a few tries. Hitting moving targets is not that easy. Hitting them where it counts is even harder.

So as I said, it could happen but to state it as fact is pushing it.

Dream on it isn't that hard..

Hmmm. I think back to WWI when aircraft were a bit flimsier and slower and the general move towards twin or multi-gun mounts using Lewis, Vickers, Spandau et.al. to more effectively engage aircraft and will stand by my statements.

Lacking any statistics evidence of the efficacy of a single, semi-automatic weapon to effectively engage and bring down an aircraft I will rely on my personal observations. You are of course at liberty to validate and or corroborate JJ's statement of fact to your heart's content.

DC-3/C-47 aren't really hardened aircraft and have taken quite a number of larger caliber hits and continued to fly.

I think if it was very doable at all, then all the full-auto terrorists of the world would have been gettin' it done on a regular basis by now.

I certainly don't disagree and I'm not siding with JJ's pile on statement after the fact just stating some actual experience that it's not just blind luck but a real possibility to shoot down an airliner..God forbid it ever happens.

Yeah, that [bleep] has a monstrous forehead, would be to easy really.

Gunner

We'd be celebrating James Earl Ray day tomorrow, had he been slick enough to break another shot and get Jessie after he shot MLK.

That's just evidence of "POLITICAL EVOLUTION".You see, because of his years in POLITICS,he's had to evolve so's he can see who's slippin' up behind him.Before you know it,he'll have eyes in the back of his head.

FlyBoyFlem,

I wouldn't dismiss possibility either. My initial response was directed to the comment that folks were being disingenuous when arguing against JJ's statement about shooting down planes. JJ did not couch his statement that it was within the realm of possibility but rather spoke of it as an everyday fact and capability. These guns can bring down planes. These pencils can kill someone. Both statements are in the realm of possibility. Most folks recognize the latter statement about pencils as not being very probable. Unfortunately, when high visibility people open their mouths about guns as in the former case too many folks do not know what is possible versus what is probable.

JJ was disingenuous in his statement.

I appreciate that you are debating this politely, by the way. A rarity around here. Well done.

I've had two different occasions to hang out near airports in my life. In both cases pre-911 so maybe things are different now. Both times, the planes came over low and slow.... At any rate, considering that the only elements at play are lead and drop..... I'm pretty certain I could put multiple hits on the engine of a plane taking off or landing. If it was with say my DPMS LR308 I'm pretty sure those hits would be devastating.

Gunner

When i worked in the Hospital and they offered me Nagger Day off i refused and worked and told them to give it to someone else who wanted off on that day.

Could you do the same with a Remington 742 (a non "assualt rifle")???? Could you put a 200gr. Barnes into an engine with a 300 RUM bolt action???? Jackson was trying to vilify one class of firearm, when in reality, nearly ANY firearm could be used for the same purpose. Imagine what would happen if someone stole a Peterbuilt with a trailer loaded with flammables and put it into a stadium full of people. I could sit here and come up with stupid "what if" scenarios all day. That doesn't mean that there should be laws regulating 18 wheelers any more than there need to be laws regulating certain firearms. Jackson was trying to create a boogey man, while what he said was true to some extent, it was not solely applicable to those firearms that idiots call assualt weapons. He was being... disingenuous.

And you can take a [bleep] if you eat regular...

Jeff O,

That is possible. Many people are surprised the first time they try.

Again, the gist is not whether it is possible by the vilification of an inanimate object by a political opportunist. With that type of logic we should also be concerned about pencils, cars, swimming pools, etc. JJ despises racism and bigotry yet has been publicly caught doing both. Remember the Hymie-town remark? JJ also portends to carry the mantle of MLK. Regardless of what you think of MLK the notion of judging a man by his character isn't bad nor is MLK's realization and practice of arming himself to protect his family even when govt and PD thought otherwise.

When i was growing up in the early sixty's , they used to announce on the Radio, please don't shoot at the airplanes they aren't looking for Stills

I agree completely that Jackson was talking out his ass, especially in regards to AR15's.

My one, simple point of debate here is (was) that some "assault rifles" (sic) could indeed be effective against civilian aircraft. Since we have a combat pilot concurring I think I'll just bow out now. Thanks for the words, gents.

This plays well with the low information voter.