Its a town of nearly 550 people. They could shoot down a hundred drones and I do not think anyone of those would land on someone.
Unlike a helicopter a drone doesn't have to manned and can go places a helicopter can without being noticed.Drones can also be mass produced.
Violence? Shooting a drone amounts to spray painting, or some other act of vandalism not violence.
Undecided if I would ever take part in such civil disobedience... but if I did... I would do it with this rifle..
View attachment 67150681
It's a $22K rifle that allows any rank amateur to hit a moving target at 1000 yards... and live stream it to your ipad...
Yep.I am all for shooting down the drones.The government has no business spying on the people and it should be costly to the government when they do something they shouldn't. This town has a population of nearly 550,so I do not see a shot drone crash landing into someone's home. Although I think if I was to do such a thing I would not get a permit.Because the permit holders will be the first people the feds will be checking.
Not sure that recording evidence for the prosecution is a good idea. Just sayin'.Undecided if I would ever take part in such civil disobedience... but if I did... I would do it with this rifle..
View attachment 67150681
It's a $22K rifle that allows any rank amateur to hit a moving target at 1000 yards... and live stream it to your ipad...
Anybody who actually gets a permit AND shoots one down is an idiot. Even if it is legitimate civil disobedience any forethinking person has to know it will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
Plus, as you mention, it is a serious potential safety hazard.
I'm not so sure about the unreasonable search, though. To the best of my knowledge, one does not own the sky above their property up to infinity. I cannot ban planes from flying over my property in a way that a country can ban planes from flying through their airspace. Hence, this is more similar to a police car and using binoculars to look into a property from a common public area (public street).
What would you bait them with?
pot plants
As amusing as it would be, I'd be concerned about spent rounds coming down who-knows-where.... and if you actually managed to KO the drone, the DRONE is coming down somewhere too... like maybe through someone's living room roof...
Unfortunately, there is no weapon system on the market that can take an amateur (or anything short of a stone cold trained sniper) and magically hit a moving target.... let alone one several thousand feet in the air... let alone one traveling in excess of 130 mph. And this is the super glaring hole in the plot - no responsible gun owner or sportsman (let alone anyone with enough training to take the shot and have a snowball's chance in hell of making it) is going to fire a rifle into the air.
If you're going to do it, just make sure your conviction is solid enough that you're willing to spend probably a couple decades in prison. Even if you're eventually found Constitutionally correct, you'll probably spend at least 1 decade in prison while it works its way through the courts.
Yep.
Not sure that recording evidence for the prosecution is a good idea. Just sayin'.
I'll take that bet....
You do realize the rifle merely places an aimpoint over predicted point of impact, right? It doesn't actually aim the rifle. It does not impart trigger discipline or proper breathing technique. And I have doubts about the range up or down it is able to correct.
But internet bets are usually pretty safe because they are untestable and unfalsifiable.
Fatal accidents involving firearms is around 600 a year. That number is miniscule.The basic rule of gun safety is to be aware of everything in the potential flight path of your weapon. People get killed every year in places where they fire guns into the air during a celebration. Lower population density might mitigate the risk, but its still an unacceptable danger. You don't get away with drunk driving by saying "well nobody ever drives on that road anyways".
It's a trick. Kind of like sending people with warrants notices that they've won a prize. It puts you on "the list" for the next ATF raid.
Deer Trail, CO. is considering an ordinance that would grant hunting licenses to shoot unmanned government drones. The FAA threatens criminal and civil liability for the hunters, as though they shot at a manned aircraft.
Deliberate destruction of government property, or righteous civil disobedience? Personally, I think the drones are unreasonable search because no warrant was issued, and unconstitutional laws should be disobeyed until repealed. But this has a public safety issue that sort-of muddys the water.
Article is here
You do realize that there are brilliant tech hackers all over this country... right? Give it a year.
So... you meant THAT weapons system. Not ANY weapons system. I'm pretty sure a person could pick up a MANPAD for a lot less than $22k
There are no motors that physically move the rifle. And even if there were, you're talking about a 1,200 yard range, which is woefully short of a drone in flight even if it's right over head. No, there is no way this specific system will ever be capable of shooting down a plane, let alone in the hands of an amateur. MANPADS also don't reach cruising altitude of a drone... they take some advanced tactical training to use... are largely defeatable.... and cost more than $22k a pop.
I bet I can find a geek who can retrofit this rifle with all the motors and gizmos needed in less than a month. But yes, range is an issue. However, if you can see a drone to shoot at it, it's not at cruising altitude. But that's all hypothetical, lets take a look at something more concrete...
Global MANPAD costs... $5000
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/issueareas/manpads/black_market_prices.pdf
As for advanced training... sure, private gump would need advanced training. Someone with an IQ above 120... a manual is enough. Trust me.
Either way... I find the whole premise of the thread and the tiny town of rednecks passing a law to shoot at something they'll never see even if straight overhead quite silly. So I posted a silly reply. Yet... damn I want that gun!
Fatal accidents involving firearms is around 600 a year. That number is miniscule.
FIREARMS TUTORIAL
Undecided if I would ever take part in such civil disobedience... but if I did... I would do it with this rifle..
View attachment 67150681
It's a $22K rifle that allows any rank amateur to hit a moving target at 1000 yards... and live stream it to your ipad...
First generation SA-7s weren't known for hitting... well, for hitting anything.
But I agree, this is a silly idea on the whole. If it's anywhere close to the realm of possibility, it's grandstanding and nothing more.
I'll be honest with you, I do long range competition shooting and 99/100ths of the fun is going through all the calculations and motions. To have a scope do that for me on the fly... well, that doesn't sound like much fun at all!
I also drive a manual transmission and make my own pasta noodles from scratch.
Actually no it wouldn't. Money can only buy so much. better to spend 2,500 on a rifle and the rest in training. What would be the lead for a drone going 75mph, 500 yards above you with a 338 lapua?
The rifle you show would be acceptable for a walking target 600 yards away, farther out IF you can compute wind accurately, but aerial engagements???
Not so much, lone bolt guns against drones, not the best combo.
Long ago at Ft. Lewis we got a chance to try and knock down an R/C plane with an entire platoon's weapons. 20 some M16s and 3 M60s. All three platoons of our Light Infantry Company cycled through the firing line. One platoon managed one hit for all the lead we threw up at the plane.
That should give a bit of prospective to hitting a flying target...eace
Why do think that number is low?
Is it because American gun owners shoot their guns up in the air all the time and the bullets don't ever hit anyone?
Or perhaps is it because most people aren't complete idiots who follow gun safety and don't do stupid **** like that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?