Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the MAGA trolls. Why hasn't any of your 2nd Amendment militia used their gun rights to shoot some of them out of the sky? I mean this seriously.

y

I realize you’ve clearly never fired a gun in your life, and that’s what led you to ask such an embarrassingly stupid question and think you sounded witty while doing it, but I’ll humor you with an actual answer, so you won’t look like such an utter imbecile in the future:

Shooting at a moving target overhead is best accomplished with a shotgun, which fires a cloud of small metal pellets, and is effective at hitting objects with reasonable accuracy up to about 250 high and maybe 200 feet away. After that, the “cloud” of shot pellets dispersers too much and the pellets themselves start to lose velocity to the point where they don’t have enough speed to do damage.

A rifle, which fires a single bullet instead of a cloud of pellets, is more accurate for distances up to several hundred yards up/out, but the problem is, with a moving target, you will probably never be able to “lead” the target properly at an unknown range to hit it. And in the meantime, the bullet you fired at it and missed with IS going to come down somewhere, potentially damaging something or someone. And contrary to what you think, most gun owners are keenly aware of the dangers of firing a rifle bullet into the air at shallow angles, and wouldn’t shoot at something in the air with a rifle unless it was practically overhead and the shot was nearly vertical (because the bullet will reach zero velocity at apogee and then fall back down at about the terminal velocity of a hailstone). And that would be a pretty unlikely scenario.

A handgun would be totally useless due to lack of any accuracy at all, and the bullet losing energy very quickly after a few hundred yards.

Plus, these drones being sighted are enormous. They’re so large that a single hit by a rifle bullet or a dozen smaller shotgun pellets probably isn’t going to cause the type of damage that would bring it down immediately.

So that’s why gun owners aren’t shooting them down. Because they’re not nearly as stupid as you are.


Now go forth and be slightly better-informed and not looking like such an idiot.

Why are you such an a**? Do you think it makes you sound smart?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:January 20th can’t come soon enough.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are in Maryland now!

Where?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re in Bowie, MD too.

Where in Bowie ?

Anonymous wrote:You guys are really winding yourselves up. Why not ask Donald Trump to step in and get you some intel. His transition team is already being briefed.

Anonymous wrote:They’re in Bowie, MD too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the MAGA trolls. Why hasn't any of your 2nd Amendment militia used their gun rights to shoot some of them out of the sky? I mean this seriously.

y

I realize you’ve clearly never fired a gun in your life, and that’s what led you to ask such an embarrassingly stupid question and think you sounded witty while doing it, but I’ll humor you with an actual answer, so you won’t look like such an utter imbecile in the future:

Shooting at a moving target overhead is best accomplished with a shotgun, which fires a cloud of small metal pellets, and is effective at hitting objects with reasonable accuracy up to about 250 high and maybe 200 feet away. After that, the “cloud” of shot pellets dispersers too much and the pellets themselves start to lose velocity to the point where they don’t have enough speed to do damage.

A rifle, which fires a single bullet instead of a cloud of pellets, is more accurate for distances up to several hundred yards up/out, but the problem is, with a moving target, you will probably never be able to “lead” the target properly at an unknown range to hit it. And in the meantime, the bullet you fired at it and missed with IS going to come down somewhere, potentially damaging something or someone. And contrary to what you think, most gun owners are keenly aware of the dangers of firing a rifle bullet into the air at shallow angles, and wouldn’t shoot at something in the air with a rifle unless it was practically overhead and the shot was nearly vertical (because the bullet will reach zero velocity at apogee and then fall back down at about the terminal velocity of a hailstone). And that would be a pretty unlikely scenario.

A handgun would be totally useless due to lack of any accuracy at all, and the bullet losing energy very quickly after a few hundred yards.

Plus, these drones being sighted are enormous. They’re so large that a single hit by a rifle bullet or a dozen smaller shotgun pellets probably isn’t going to cause the type of damage that would bring it down immediately.





So that’s why gun owners aren’t shooting them down. Because they’re not nearly as stupid as you are.


Now go forth and be slightly better-informed and not looking like such an idiot.

Why are you such an a**? Do you think it makes you sound smart?

1) it’s hilarious that you think being called an “ass” affects me… other than making me laugh

2) I’m very smart.

Everyone I’ve ever met who says they’re smart is not smart at all. Dumb people are too dumb to know they are dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the MAGA trolls. Why hasn't any of your 2nd Amendment militia used their gun rights to shoot some of them out of the sky? I mean this seriously.

y

I realize you’ve clearly never fired a gun in your life, and that’s what led you to ask such an embarrassingly stupid question and think you sounded witty while doing it, but I’ll humor you with an actual answer, so you won’t look like such an utter imbecile in the future:

Shooting at a moving target overhead is best accomplished with a shotgun, which fires a cloud of small metal pellets, and is effective at hitting objects with reasonable accuracy up to about 250 high and maybe 200 feet away. After that, the “cloud” of shot pellets dispersers too much and the pellets themselves start to lose velocity to the point where they don’t have enough speed to do damage.

A rifle, which fires a single bullet instead of a cloud of pellets, is more accurate for distances up to several hundred yards up/out, but the problem is, with a moving target, you will probably never be able to “lead” the target properly at an unknown range to hit it. And in the meantime, the bullet you fired at it and missed with IS going to come down somewhere, potentially damaging something or someone. And contrary to what you think, most gun owners are keenly aware of the dangers of firing a rifle bullet into the air at shallow angles, and wouldn’t shoot at something in the air with a rifle unless it was practically overhead and the shot was nearly vertical (because the bullet will reach zero velocity at apogee and then fall back down at about the terminal velocity of a hailstone). And that would be a pretty unlikely scenario.

A handgun would be totally useless due to lack of any accuracy at all, and the bullet losing energy very quickly after a few hundred yards.

Plus, these drones being sighted are enormous. They’re so large that a single hit by a rifle bullet or a dozen smaller shotgun pellets probably isn’t going to cause the type of damage that would bring it down immediately.





So that’s why gun owners aren’t shooting them down. Because they’re not nearly as stupid as you are.


Now go forth and be slightly better-informed and not looking like such an idiot.

Why are you such an a**? Do you think it makes you sound smart?

1) it’s hilarious that you think being called an “ass” affects me… other than making me laugh

2) I’m very smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the MAGA trolls. Why hasn't any of your 2nd Amendment militia used their gun rights to shoot some of them out of the sky? I mean this seriously.

y

I realize you’ve clearly never fired a gun in your life, and that’s what led you to ask such an embarrassingly stupid question and think you sounded witty while doing it, but I’ll humor you with an actual answer, so you won’t look like such an utter imbecile in the future:

Shooting at a moving target overhead is best accomplished with a shotgun, which fires a cloud of small metal pellets, and is effective at hitting objects with reasonable accuracy up to about 250 high and maybe 200 feet away. After that, the “cloud” of shot pellets dispersers too much and the pellets themselves start to lose velocity to the point where they don’t have enough speed to do damage.

A rifle, which fires a single bullet instead of a cloud of pellets, is more accurate for distances up to several hundred yards up/out, but the problem is, with a moving target, you will probably never be able to “lead” the target properly at an unknown range to hit it. And in the meantime, the bullet you fired at it and missed with IS going to come down somewhere, potentially damaging something or someone. And contrary to what you think, most gun owners are keenly aware of the dangers of firing a rifle bullet into the air at shallow angles, and wouldn’t shoot at something in the air with a rifle unless it was practically overhead and the shot was nearly vertical (because the bullet will reach zero velocity at apogee and then fall back down at about the terminal velocity of a hailstone). And that would be a pretty unlikely scenario.

A handgun would be totally useless due to lack of any accuracy at all, and the bullet losing energy very quickly after a few hundred yards.

Plus, these drones being sighted are enormous. They’re so large that a single hit by a rifle bullet or a dozen smaller shotgun pellets probably isn’t going to cause the type of damage that would bring it down immediately.





So that’s why gun owners aren’t shooting them down. Because they’re not nearly as stupid as you are.


Now go forth and be slightly better-informed and not looking like such an idiot.

Why are you such an a**? Do you think it makes you sound smart?

Anonymous wrote:January 20th can’t come soon enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are in Maryland now!

Where?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAA has been impacted by these drones. Doubt it is our own military:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/us/new-jersey-drone-sightings-investigation/index.html

Why don’t Democrats care???

Seriously, WHY DON’T THEY CARE?

I mean, WTAF? These things are flying all over the place, no one knows anything about it, the FBI is telling the public to call a tip line, and Phil Murphy and other democrats are poo-poo’ing the whole thing, telling people it’s not a threat, and laughing at people - republicans - who are alarmed at this stuff?

Seriously democrats, WTAF are you doing?

Anyone?

What are the Republicans doing? They’re not bothered either.

Anonymous wrote:They are in Maryland now!