0
regulator

Mayor Bloomberg

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

it's a good idea to preserve the right to bear arms. That right does not extend to antiaircraft weapons.



Why not?



If a tyrannical government is coming after you with heli gunships and A10s, surely the defenders of the Constitution should be allowed to have AA guns.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Well, the aircraft of 1918 were a just a little bit more vulnerable to a 50 cal round than
>a 747, I would think.

Really?

So it's easier to get a round into the air intake of a DC-3's radial engines than into the air intake of a 747's engines?

A nonpressurized aircraft would be in trouble if you poked some holes in it, but a pressurized aircraft would be OK?

A 3/8" steel control cable would be taken out by gunfire, whereas a 3000ps hydraulic line would be just fine?

A B-17 that lost its windscreen would crash, but a 747 would be quite flyable?

Hmm. Think I'd disagree there. Read up on the punishment that DC-3's, B-17's and B-24's took during the various wars they were in, then consider what would happen to, say, a 747 with the same number of holes/missing engines/missing windshields etc.



Well, I was under the impression that -3s, -17s and -24s were developed well after 1918.

And while turbine engines are far more vulnerable to bullet damage than piston radials (hitting the air intake on a DC-3 wouldn't hurt the engine at all, hitting the crankcase, which would drain the oil out would) actually hitting it with a rifle from that far away while the airplane is moving a couple of hundred mph (slower on final approach, but still well over 100) is very difficult. And a 747 will fly on 3 engines just fine.

Pressurized aircraft are just fine with a couple of 1/2" holes poked in them. Mythbusters proved it. And at less than 8000' the loss of pressure won't affect anyone much.

Hydraulic systems are usually 2 completely seperate sets, with a backup. The crash of UAL232 happened because the departing turbine disk took out all three systems. And even smaller than the engine, hitting it would be virtually impossible.

A 747 that lost its winshield would be in trouble, but there have been cases of airliners losing them and landing safely (one even did it after the pilot got sucked out the opening and was being held by his feet by a steward)http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/11/world/4-miles-over-britain-pilot-is-sucked-out-crew-holds-on-tight.html

There's absolutely no way a 747 could continue to fly after taking the kind of hits you are talking about. The damage those aircraft took, and still got thier surviving crew home was absolutely staggering. I know exactly what you mean.
But that wasn't done by an "assault rifle" or a semi-auto 50 cal, or even machine gun fire.
The Germans used 20mm and 30mm cannon on their fighters. And much of the damage you are talking about came from flak. 88mm anti-aircraft cannon.



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.



Well, the Spitfire was armed with 303s, but the Hurricane was armed with 37mm cannon.

Which plane do you think won the Battle of Britain, professor?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

it's a good idea to preserve the right to bear arms. That right does not extend to antiaircraft weapons.



Why not?



If a tyrannical government is coming after you with heli gunships and A10s, surely the defenders of the Constitution should be allowed to have AA guns.



Actually, I'm not sure that that proposition, in earnest, is inconsistent with the Constitution. Additionally, should a foreign or domestic enemy have hostile aircraft in the air over our heads that have not been neutralized by our regular military or air national guard, given that the militia (IMO) ultimately includes the entire citizenry, said militia needs to have the means to be another layer of the people's common defense against those aircraft.

I'm not being facaetious here, btw. This must be part of the policy conversation, adn must be reconciled with the conscept of "reasonable restrictions". The devil, of course, is in the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.



Well, the Spitfire was armed with 303s, but the Hurricane was armed with 37mm cannon.



Not during the Battle of Britain. Both Hurricanes and Spits had the 303s until 1941.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?



I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.


Some years back there was a article in the local paper about a gun dealer in Colorado Springs who had gotten all the appropriate FFL's and mounted a machine gun on the back of his Jeep, "Rat Patrol" style. The local cops all knew him but whenever he encountered an unfamiliar cop there would be much pant-wetting until he showed all his paperwork and they would send him on his way.:ph34r:
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The Germans used 20mm and 30mm cannon on their fighters. And much of the
>damage you are talking about came from flak. 88mm anti-aircraft cannon.

True. Of course, the German aircraft who made it back chewed up that badly (or more often did NOT make it back) were often damaged/destroyed by . . . . the Browning M2's mounted in P-47's and P-51's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you guys even debating AA weaps? No one is talking banning them and they are totally legal and arguably better protected under the 2nd than small arms. Buy your tax stamp for the launcher and then buy another for every round of ammo and your golden.


-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why are you guys even debating AA weaps? No one is talking banning them and they are totally legal and arguably better protected under the 2nd than small arms. Buy your tax stamp for the launcher and then buy another for every round of ammo and your golden.


-Blind



Well, we really aren't discussing AA. We're debating whether or not a 50 cal is usable for downing a modern aircraft.

The anti-gunners (people against guns as apposed to anti-aircraft gunners who are against airplanes :P) want the sheep to believe that they are.

They compare a single shot or repeating bolt action or even semi-auto 50 sniper rifle to the mulitple (multiple as in 4 or 8) machine gun AA setups from 70 years ago.

They convieniently ignore how many rounds that were typically used to down an enemy plane - hundreds of shots were needed. Partly because hitting a plane is a very difficult task, partly because you either need to hit something vital or do substantial damage. (Note: Japanese Zeros didn't have self sealing fuel tanks or pilot armor and were vulnerable, the P-51 Mustang had a belly mounted radiator that was very vulnerable to ground fire).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On August 18, 1940 a Dornier bomber attacking Biggin Hill Aerodrome was shot down at Leaves Green, Kent by a motley bunch of part-time soldiers (the 4th Platoon of the Kent Home Guard) armed only with infantry rifles.


And about those 303s on the Hurricanes in 1940:P

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, really shouldn't the debate be about rotary wing aviation?

Frankly, your average American has easy access to the tech to defeat/or at least survive JDAMS and both laser and mm-band hellfires, so I'd figure you'd mostly have to worry about dumb munitions like 70 mm ffar's. Gvien that the engagement would be on US soil collateral damage would be an even bigger issue which means that rotary aviation would be the choice because of the higher accuracy from the slower moving platform. In that case, the helicopter of choice would be the Apache and isn't it proofed vs 50 cal AP? Would it even know if it was beign fired on by a .308?


-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.



Well, the Spitfire was armed with 303s, but the Hurricane was armed with 37mm cannon.

Which plane do you think won the Battle of Britain, professor?


Ironically, the first 20mm cannon armed Spitfires were in regular service before the first 20mm cannon armed Hurricanes - and neither had a significant effect during the BoB.

Nice try though;)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Frankly, your average American has easy access to the tech to defeat/or at least survive JDAMS and both laser and mm-band hellfires, so I'd figure you'd mostly have to worry about dumb munitions like 70 mm ffar's.



Access is irrelevant if they don't know what it is or how to use it. And they don't.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.



Well, the Spitfire was armed with 303s, but the Hurricane was armed with 37mm cannon.

Which plane do you think won the Battle of Britain, professor?


Ironically, the first 20mm cannon armed Spitfires were in regular service before the first 20mm cannon armed Hurricanes - and neither had a significant effect during the BoB.

Nice try though;)


The introduction of cannons on the Hurricane was delayed because the flight performance was badly degraded. Had to await the introduction of a more powerful Merlin in 1941.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Access is irrelevant if they don't know what it is or how to use it. And they don't.



Don't kid yourself. The guys most likely to be visited by the US gvoernment have been taking very careful notes about US COIN tactics and and been adjusting accordingly.

There are some very organized, very sophisticated militas out there (I used to live not too far from a battalion-strength one that had a full ArCav squadron complete with rotary air support) and they focus a great deal of their efforts and resources thinking of ways to counter the big bad government scenario even to the point of figuring out ways to rapidly disseminate weapons counter measures info to the average joe in the hopes that if it does hit the fan, they can win over enough popular support to generate some partisan activity.

Personally, if the governemnt is trying to defang internal threats against itself, instead of your average joe's guns, I'd be far more worried about the established militas that have the ability to deploy actual military heavy hardware vs the plethora of soft military targets within the borders of the US. They have no hope of actually winning a ptiched campaign, but it would be frighteningly easy for them to damage the support strucutre of the Us miltiary enough to comprimise its ability to deal with external threats in the short and mid-term time frames.

-Blind
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


On August 18, 1940 a Dornier bomber attacking Biggin Hill Aerodrome was shot down at Leaves Green, Kent by a motley bunch of part-time soldiers (the 4th Platoon of the Kent Home Guard) armed only with infantry rifles.


And about those 303s on the Hurricanes in 1940:P



My mistake on the Hurricane armament. I'm not an expert, I just found a historical website that claimed the "Hurries" had cannon during BoB.
I did know that the Spit, while important, really took 2nd place on the podium for the BoB.

And yes, a motley group of "Home Guardsmen" probably shot down one or two German planes. Or at least claimed to have.
I'm sure that there were a lot of Home Guardsmen shooting a lot of guns at a lot of German planes.
But I'll bet the attempts to kills ratio was really really high.

And yes, the 303s in the Spits and the Hurricanes were used to good effect in the BoB against the attacking planes.
But it's still ludicrous to compare 8 machine guns firing a combined Two THOUSAND rounds per minute against a rifle firing at most 10 per minute.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>They convieniently ignore how many rounds that were typically used to down an
>enemy plane - hundreds of shots were needed.

Yep. You'd need something that could put out hundreds of rounds a minute - like, say, a Browning M2. Of course the rabid gun nuts don't know much about the weapons they're defending, so that often catches them by surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?



I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.


Some years back there was a article in the local paper about a gun dealer in Colorado Springs who had gotten all the appropriate FFL's and mounted a machine gun on the back of his Jeep, "Rat Patrol" style. The local cops all knew him but whenever he encountered an unfamiliar cop there would be much pant-wetting until he showed all his paperwork and they would send him on his way.:ph34r:


Sounds like Dragon Man, I wouldn't be surprised if that was him. Matter of fact I think I may have seen the Jeep running around town.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



The Battle of Britain was won with M1919s chambered for .303 rounds.



Well, the Spitfire was armed with 303s, but the Hurricane was armed with 37mm cannon.

Which plane do you think won the Battle of Britain, professor?



The hurricane was the unsung hero of the BoB, and both the cane and the spit were armed with 303s at the time. The spitfire got a pair of 20mms early on in the war with the mk IIB, but they were only 60 round drums and had feeding problems. It wasn't until the mk V that the spit sported 120 round drums and no feeding issues (and finally got on par with Germany's 109 / 190). That being said, the cane wasn't fitted with 37mm, they were 40mm for the mk IID and by then, the hurricane was being used for ground attack (which was also the primary role of the IIc which had 4 20mm hispanos). The cane was too slow to really compete with the bf109 or FW190.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Why are you guys even debating AA weaps?

Because the OP claimed that there was no such thing as a weapon that could take down an airliner from a mile and a half out and thus Bloomberg was an idiot.



You seem to see what you want to see. The OP did not make this claim. I don't know if you are lying or what? What the OP was saying is that "Assault Weapons" can't take down an airliner from a mile out. And that is true. The weapon you trotted out isn't an "Assault Weapon".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?



I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.


Some years back there was a article in the local paper about a gun dealer in Colorado Springs who had gotten all the appropriate FFL's and mounted a machine gun on the back of his Jeep, "Rat Patrol" style. The local cops all knew him but whenever he encountered an unfamiliar cop there would be much pant-wetting until he showed all his paperwork and they would send him on his way.:ph34r:


Sounds like Dragon Man, I wouldn't be surprised if that was him. Matter of fact I think I may have seen the Jeep running around town.


Looks like the Jeep: http://www.facebook.com/Dragonmans

Thanks!
I had tried googling w/o success, but googling "dragon man" did the trick.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>They convieniently ignore how many rounds that were typically used to down an
>enemy plane - hundreds of shots were needed.

Yep. You'd need something that could put out hundreds of rounds a minute - like, say, a Browning M2. Of course the rabid gun nuts don't know much about the weapons they're defending, so that often catches them by surprise.



And you continue with your straw man argument. Browning M2's are not "Assault Weapons". Those are Class 3 weapons that are very expensive to buy and shoot. It's obvious to anyone who cares to be honest about this argument that it's not what the OP or Mayor Bloomberg was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a gun whuffo. Most whuffos (in anything) use wrong vocabulary. Some wrong use of vocab reflects a whuffo's lack of understanding of something fundamental, but not all of it necessarily does. Productive discussion involves distinguishing between the two. "Aha!" moments over wrong vobabluary (the horror!) make nifty debate sound bytes, but they rarely add anything constructive about policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0