Posted on 01/17/2013 5:57:07 PM PST by Red Steel
“Bang! Bang! Bang!”
Hear that? It’s the sound of an assault weapon in the hands of a rogue individual, taking down an airplane flying overhead.
At least, that’s what the Reverend Jesse Jackson thinks assault weapons can do. The Reverend’s misinformed assertion that assault weapons are capable of shooting down airplanes came during a Fox News appearance yesterday.
“These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapons, can only kill people, and in fact, they are threats to national security … the young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado … he could shoot down airplanes, so this is a matter of homeland security as well,” he said while speaking about gun control with anchor Martha MacCallum on ‘America’s Newsroom.’ The debate about gun control has permeated the national dialogue ever since the tragic massacre of 26 innocent victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month involved a gun.
An assault weapon is a loose term not easily defined, often brought up in discussions about gun control, and commonly refers to the high-powered rifles and other guns that are used in tragic shootings, such as the AR-15. And according to Jason Hanson, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who spoke to The Blaze, using a rifle similar to the one Aurora shooter James Holmes used, “it would be impossible to shoot down a plane. (Okay, nothing is impossible, but it would be as likely as aliens knocking on my front door tomorrow.) I’ve never heard of a rifle shooting down civilians plane outside of a war zone either.”
Even Michael Knox, a criminology consultant with a specialty in firearms and ballistics, said the AR-15, “is no more capable than any other firearm of shooting down a plane–less capable than most hunting rifles–so, Jesse Jackson’s claim would mean that all firearms are a threat to national security.” He went on to say, “Clearly, Jackson is reaching for gun control rhetoric and he would be well-served to do some research on firearms before making such absurd public statements.
We await comment from the White House and its liberal parrots on whether or not the Reverend’s comedic comments are a welcome distraction from the President of the United States and his recently issued controversial executive actions.
(h/t to The Blaze for catching the glaring flaw in Reverend Jackson’s statement.)
Should we offer more ideas here?
Only if it's below 25,000 ft.
Well, like gosh, dude — perhaps a .223 Remington or a 7.62x39 bullet can shoot down an airplane on your planet, but not here in the real world. You really need to stop doing that blow [cocaine], Rev. You’re getting a little wacky. Spend more time with the mistress and your love child in California on the Rainbow PUSH nickel, Jesse.
Is that right?
When I was in Army basic training in 1968 we were taught not to bother shooting at aircraft, and we were training with M-14s.
Marble mouthed moron.
I think the Tuscon shooter was also a registered democrat.
We had one night of tracer firing during my training, so it was interesting to read about how tracers would be used to adjust aiming points for aircraft.
My recollection is that the guidance I was given NOT to bother firing at aircraft was addressing the individual soldier. The manual makes it clear that you need to create a high volume of fire to have a decent chance of success, meaning that an entire squad should engage simultaneously.
Here we go again . . .
DANG!
PING!
PING!
AIRPLANE ASSAULT STICK
> That is my thought exactly...where are the news people hammering back. I am so sick of this crap.
And the liberals will believe it because everything and anything is possible online in computer games and Hollywood media and because they don’t get out enough to experience reality. Red pill or blue pill mentality.
> Yes, you can bring down a small aircraft with small arms fire, including a AR-15. It is still part of Army doctrine for active air defense measures. I’m not supporting his pov, just bringing up that fact.
But seriously how often do you hear about this occurring? And I would think it would require some training and at close range.
> My recollection is that the guidance I was given NOT to bother firing at aircraft was addressing the individual soldier. The manual makes it clear that you need to create a high volume of fire to have a decent chance of success, meaning that an entire squad should engage simultaneously.
A big difference when you bring this into context. Individual soldier; highly doubtful
> Registered Democrat
I think the Tuscon shooter was also a registered democrat.
Need to start compiling a list of as many horrific shootings by registered Democrats and liberals and publish it all over the Internet and shame them. Use their own Alinsky tactics against them.
Check out this article I got in an email today.
Gun Violence is Not a Republican Problem, It’s a Democratic Problem
Finally. Someone using the media to fight back effectively. We need to see more articles written like this. Facts and figures (real; not imagined or made up by the left) are something both sides can understand.
After reading that article I think it’s clear; Democrats / Liberals / Progressives, whatever you want to call ‘em should not be allowed to buy, possess, or own guns due to their mental state of mind...lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
