Anonymous wrote:

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?

You, 17:31, owe us an apology for your gross stupidity.
— Different poster

Your orange god is now calling for someone to shoot the drones down. Take it up with Cheetoman, ya dum dum.

That’s Mr. President to you… dum dum

No, it's cheeto a$$wipe to you.

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?

You, 17:31, owe us an apology for your gross stupidity.
— Different poster

Your orange god is now calling for someone to shoot the drones down. Take it up with Cheetoman, ya dum dum.

Maybe he'll get out his yuge Cheeto laser to shoot them down.

Anonymous wrote:What are MAGA going to do in two months when the world is exactly the same and they don't have Biden to blame anymore?

They'll just say that they "inherited" the issues.

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?

You, 17:31, owe us an apology for your gross stupidity.
— Different poster

Your orange god is now calling for someone to shoot the drones down. Take it up with Cheetoman, ya dum dum.

That’s Mr. President to you… dum dum

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?

You, 17:31, owe us an apology for your gross stupidity.
— Different poster

Your orange god is now calling for someone to shoot the drones down. Take it up with Cheetoman, ya dum dum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The press conference today with John Kirby was crazy. He's basically straight up lying about the drones and the awesome journalists refuse to buy his BS. Hats off to them. Given his bald face lies on the record, I have to think the drones are controlled by the US gov - but for god only knows what purpose.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hcvfs6/reporter_calls_out_pentagon_gaslighting_theyre/

For sure it's the Biden administration. But why do this over the crowded eastern seaboard in the weeks leading up to the inauguration?

It doesn't add up.

Because they are scanning the region to see what the base level of radiation is. As I said (and they said) weeks ago. This is all in preparation for the inauguration.

Why?

Why do they need to know radiation levels?

To have a baseline so that if it increases because someone brings in a dirty bomb or any other kind of weapon with radiation, they can more easily detect the change.
https://www.popville.com/2024/12/dc-low-flying-helicopters/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are MAGA going to do in two months when the world is exactly the same and they don't have Biden to blame anymore?

We’ll do exactly what you did in February of ‘21 - we’ll blame the guy before him. You blames Trump for everything. We’ll blame Biden.

It worked for you, didn’t it? Why shouldn’t we do the same?

So you admit it? Nothing will change?

Right after you admit that Trump’s first term was just fine!

I’ll wait.

Np. You can wait forever. He was a disaster and embarrassment. And delivered on NONE of his promises. He passed no legislation other than to five tax breaks for the wealthy. But do go on. How was it “fine.”

+1

It was horrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are MAGA going to do in two months when the world is exactly the same and they don't have Biden to blame anymore?

We’ll do exactly what you did in February of ‘21 - we’ll blame the guy before him. You blames Trump for everything. We’ll blame Biden.

It worked for you, didn’t it? Why shouldn’t we do the same?

So you admit it? Nothing will change?

Right after you admit that Trump’s first term was just fine!

I’ll wait.

Np. You can wait forever. He was a disaster and embarrassment. And delivered on NONE of his promises. He passed no legislation other than to five tax breaks for the wealthy. But do go on. How was it “fine.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:like the past 4 years, Biden is asleep at Rehobeth and no one is in charge.

like the border was secure

like Israel was doing good.

nothing to see here.

scary, cant wait for a real government to take charge.

You need more to do. Enough of this barking up non-existent trees.

Hmmmmm, ok.

So democrats contend that these drones aren’t real. They’re non-existent.

That’s your final answer? Cool cool. Then GTFO this thread and don’t come back.

Anonymous wrote:like the past 4 years, Biden is asleep at Rehobeth and no one is in charge.

like the border was secure

like Israel was doing good.

nothing to see here.

scary, cant wait for a real government to take charge.

You need more to do. Enough of this barking up non-existent trees.

like the past 4 years, Biden is asleep at Rehobeth and no one is in charge.

like the border was secure

like Israel was doing good.

nothing to see here.

scary, cant wait for a real government to take charge.

Anonymous wrote:As someone from NJ, not the kind of place to FAFO. Hard to believe residents haven’t taken it into their own hands yet.

(not that I’m advocating for that just surprised it hasn’t already gone there)

Hey careful there. The MAGA militia haunting this thread are going to start calling you stupid for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The press conference today with John Kirby was crazy. He's basically straight up lying about the drones and the awesome journalists refuse to buy his BS. Hats off to them. Given his bald face lies on the record, I have to think the drones are controlled by the US gov - but for god only knows what purpose.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hcvfs6/reporter_calls_out_pentagon_gaslighting_theyre/

For sure it's the Biden administration. But why do this over the crowded eastern seaboard in the weeks leading up to the inauguration?

It doesn't add up.

Because they are scanning the region to see what the base level of radiation is. As I said (and they said) weeks ago. This is all in preparation for the inauguration.

Why?

Why do they need to know radiation levels?

They’re probably looking for a dirty bomb or something else planted by a foreign or domestic terrorist? Maybe they have intel we don’t know about? I think it’s very reasonable to scan for radiation before an important event like the inauguration!

No

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The press conference today with John Kirby was crazy. He's basically straight up lying about the drones and the awesome journalists refuse to buy his BS. Hats off to them. Given his bald face lies on the record, I have to think the drones are controlled by the US gov - but for god only knows what purpose.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hcvfs6/reporter_calls_out_pentagon_gaslighting_theyre/

For sure it's the Biden administration. But why do this over the crowded eastern seaboard in the weeks leading up to the inauguration?

It doesn't add up.

Because they are scanning the region to see what the base level of radiation is. As I said (and they said) weeks ago. This is all in preparation for the inauguration.

Why?

Why do they need to know radiation levels?

They’re probably looking for a dirty bomb or something else planted by a foreign or domestic terrorist? Maybe they have intel we don’t know about? I think it’s very reasonable to scan for radiation before an important event like the inauguration!

Yes, but they always do that with helicopters. That's nothing new. And the federal government is always very upfront about that in the days leading up to an inauguration. For people in the DC area, you will notice low flying helicopters in restricted airspace from 1/15 onwards. That has been the norm for years. They are scanning for radiation. And they say so. The government isn't hiding anything here.

This drone stuff is genuinely mystifying. Why the federal government is allowing these things to fly around very sensitive areas - military bases, Trump's home in NJ, highly populated areas - is bizarre. A quick glance at the war in Ukraine demonstrates how devastating drones are these days. The small ones are flying anti-personal weapons that will cut a man in two. Slightly bigger, and they are taking out tanks. And both Russia and Ukraine have long distance drones that travel more than a 1000 miles and take out power plants and oil refineries.

The Biden response to these things flying in heavily populated areas or over very sensitive military targets is absolutely bizarre. And the John Kirby press conference did not help things at all. The public Biden position is that these things are merely airplanes and people are idiots - including the governors of New Jersey and Maryland. And even if they are not, it's no big deal. Nothing to worry about.

States can't do anything about these drones. They can't send up an Apache or an F-35 and shoot them down. Only the federal government can do anything about it. And they're not. Kirby is telling people they are morons for being concerned. And that only deepens the mystery. Either they are so checked out and lost in presidential senility that they don't care anymore. Or something is afoot. The federal response and their talking points is breathtakingly awful.

I understand these drones don't have a radar signature. That alone is deeply concerning. US air defense can typically find a tennis ball flying through the air. And they can't be jammed like a typical drone that relies on GPS and an operator's controls.

It's all very mysterious.

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.

Parabolas. That's why.

JFC, have some compassion! Don’t try and explain math concepts to liberals, you’ll give them aneurysms!

You spelled MAGAs wrong