It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heat seeking bullets cook what they hit?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
that is hilarious. "Whats a barrel shroud?" hahahaha. "Oh, you dont know? Cause its in your legislation." Love how he kinda trailed off with that last part lol. Cant stop laughing. I honestly cant believe somebody banned "barrel shrouds"....they have no effect on the performance on the gun. Guess cause it might look a lil more scary is all i can come up with. hell i have one for my shotgun, all it does is dissipate the heat a lil bit. Wow, you obviously have to have a low iq to get into politics.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
LOL
Heat seeking bullets

What is this the Fifth Element



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
Wow, you obviously have to have a low iq to get into politics.


Glad you finally figured that out!


2nd line.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
And these are the clowns we have writing our laws? Don't you think it should be mandatory that these short bus riders have an understanding of what they're legislating before enacting any law?


They should but that kinda thinking could do us in. Your words are nothing more than a delusional dream! Lawmakers reading stuff?
It might hurt their heads. Think about their heads!!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho


Imagine eating some cooked venison out in the bush immediately after a kill. What a great snack.


Emeril would love it.

Bam!

I wonder where I can get teriyaki pepper flavored heat seeking incendiary rounds.

[edit on 113030p://f07Thursday by badgerprints]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I think it's kind of funny that she thinks a terrorist would go to a gun shop to buy a rifle.

Yeah, those terrorists, always looking to create a paper trail. Im sure they want to take the time to get their weapon registered in new york as well.

Secondly, she's a moron. Anyone who understands the .50 BMG knows that it won't take down an airplane without rapid fire. A bolt or even semi-auto won't put out enough fire power to take a large airplane out.

Plus, that is a really bad rifle for guerilla warfare tactics. Those .50 BMG snipers often weigh 25 pounds at he least but usually over 30. It's not something you can move quickly with. Either way it seems silly, it's not the govt. right to limit the people's access to weapons.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
I think it's kind of funny that she thinks a terrorist would go to a gun shop to buy a rifle.

Yeah, those terrorists, always looking to create a paper trail. Im sure they want to take the time to get their weapon registered in new york as well.


John Allen Williams used properly bought weapons. As did Charles Whitman, Lee Oswald or Seung-Hui Cho. And these are just a few examples. You cannot equal run of the mill criminals to terrorists and serial/mass killers.

A criminal uses his weapon as a tool for personal gain, and it is in his interest never to be caught. Terrorists and other extreme personalities are emotion driven and function in a very different way, sometimes even expecting or longing to perish in a blazing shootout.

Most terrorist attacks in the western world are carried out by loners and deranged persons. Why do you think you are able to predict their actions and motifs when they already have crossed all bounds of normal and sensible behaviour?


Secondly, she's a moron. Anyone who understands the .50 BMG knows that it won't take down an airplane without rapid fire. A bolt or even semi-auto won't put out enough fire power to take a large airplane out.


There are numerous ways one COULD disable aircraft with high powered rifles. They are most vulnerable at takeoff, which is also about the easiest and most sensible point to strike. Even delusional murderers are capable of figuering THAT out. All it takes is a lucky hit in the right circumstances. A compelling (non-terroristic) example is Air France Flight 4590, downed by a burst tire.


Plus, that is a really bad rifle for guerilla warfare tactics. Those .50 BMG snipers often weigh 25 pounds at he least but usually over 30. It's not something you can move quickly with.


Simply shoot from a car or truck. The shooter is concealed, can move inconspicuously and it provides a really comfortable and stable firing platform. Its not exactly a novel idea.


Either way it seems silly,...


It was also silly to believe someone could use homebrewn explosives to bring down a whole building - but McVeigh did it. It was silly to expect terrorists to attack a huge warship with a small dinghy - look what happened to the Cole. It was silly to believe ten gunmen would start an attack in a modern urban center - 500 casualties paid for that in Mumbai. It was silly to believe anyone could take a thousand hostages - the Chechens did it twice.

Nothing is silly when trying to predict what happens when murderous energy comes together with creativity.

Mind you, I am not pro or con gun restriction in the US. I just wanted to show the dangerous holes in your thoughts.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
How would she feel if we campaigned to make her fifteen inch battery powered heat seeking wobbly warhead illegal? Sure not everybody uses one and you certainly could not kill a deer with it, but everyone has a different hobby. Don't mess with mine and I won't mess with yours.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


Go ahead and believe that Lee Oswald story. Anyone who has shot such a gun knows they are not accurate and you could not crank out the shots that were fired with one and hit anything at the range the Govt is claiming Oswald fired from. Lee Oswald was even using the carbine version which is even more inaccurate than the long barreled version. It was NOT a sniper rifle by any stretch of the imagination.

I believe the other shooters were on the medication known as SRI's. Most mass murderers in modern history were on these meds when they went rogue. So were the kids who killed at Columbine. I would say Doctors are responsible, not guns for those killings. The lady who drove into the lake with her kids was also on these meds.

[edit on 9-13-2009 by groingrinder]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
"Simply shoot from a car or truck. The shooter is concealed, can move inconspicuously and it provides a really comfortable and stable firing platform. Its not exactly a novel idea."

Yep, that sniper rifle is going to be real easy to conceal in a moving car with the barrel hanging out the window gangland style. Get a clue man. Try firing from a moving car or truck with a huge buttload of a gun and tell me all about how stable of a shooting platform it is.

Do you even own a gun?




[edit on 9-13-2009 by groingrinder]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Go ahead and believe that Lee Oswald story. Anyone who has shot such a gun knows they are not accurate and you could not crank out the shots that were fired with one and hit anything at the range the Govt is claiming Oswald fired from. Lee Oswald was even using the carbine version which is even more inaccurate than the long barreled version. It was NOT a sniper rifle by any stretch of the imagination.


I´m not going to debate the JFK murder here. Fact is that Oswald was an emotionally driven mischief, murderer and would-be assassin of Gen. Walker even if he indeed was completely uninvolved in the Kennedy assassination.

Fact is also that the rifle supposedly used is absolutely sufficient for the shots in question at any distances on Dealy Plaza. That Italy and several other countries used this rifle effectively for many decades including two of the bloodiest wars in history, as well as numerous federal and independent tests on the subject, counts more than fringe opinion.

Anyway, that was not the point at all. The point was the fallacious idea that people moving on the illegal walks of life automatically use illegal means to get their tools.


Originally posted by groingrinder
Yep, that sniper rifle is going to be real easy to conceal in a moving car with the barrel hanging out the window gangland style. Get a clue man. Try firing from a moving car or truck with a huge buttload of a gun and tell me all about how stable of a shooting platform it is.

Do you even own a gun?


Oh I agree 100% that gangbang shooting is quite ineffective. I have however recently read that newest transmission technology from Germany will enable cars to drive VERY slowly, to the point of coming to a complete standstill. The NHTSA has already classified this novel and deliberate act as "vehicular parking".

Some senior experienced drivers reportedly even manage to "park" their car with the trunk of the vehicle facing any direction they like. It is not unthinkable that a would-be terrorist with a bit of practice manages to copy that feat, park between the bushes near the end of a runway, aim and shoot from the trunk or the open boot of a pickup.

Do you even own a car?





[edit on 13/9/2009 by Lonestar24]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Obviously many of our representative know very little about the technology that they pass legislation for. The original vidio in the starting post showed that the legislator had some understanding of what an incindiary was but then she misstated that it was heat seeking. Her basic premise that nobody would seriously think of hunting with a 50bmg with incendiary bullets (I assume she means tracer) is essentially correct. Of course the notion that the "Right to Bear Arms" was meant to apply to hunting rifles is almost certainly not correct but if we follow that line of reasoning too far we get to the point where we are saying that Americans should have the right to own an F-15E with laser and GPS guided weapons.

Somewhere between no arms and the F-15E seems to be a reasonable line to draw, but where exactly that line needs to be is an open question. I am not at all in favor of the absurd definitions of "assault rifles" that have been put forth by many states and even the Federal Government. Essentially the concept seems to be that if the rifle is modern then it is bad but if it is old looking (wooden stock, no plastic or metal hand guards, muzzle brakes, not semi auto or some wierd combination of those things) then it is ok. In California you can go to any gun store and by a 308 auto loader with a 20 round detachable magazine, as long as it is a M1 garand clone, but if it looks like a M-16/M-4 then the manufacturer has to make it impossible to put in a detachable magazine in it. If someone could explain to me what sense that makes I would love to here it.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join