HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Latest right-wing meme- &...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:12 PM

Latest right-wing meme- "No assault rifle used at Sandy Hook"

It's all over facebook and I'm trying to refute it and googling madly but can't find anything. They are all quoting Pete Williams on NBC who said 4 handguns were found in the school but the rifle was outside in the trunk of the car.

Can someone help?

edit- thanks for all your posts. I'm trying to learn as much as I can. And yes, it doesn't really matter what gun was used.

165 replies, 18359 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 165 replies Author Time Post
Reply Latest right-wing meme- "No assault rifle used at Sandy Hook" (Original post)
Beaverhausen Jan 2013 OP
Recursion Jan 2013 #1
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #4
spanone Jan 2013 #10
Recursion Jan 2013 #13
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #88
Hugabear Jan 2013 #115
Igel Jan 2013 #147
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #151
Sugarcoated Jan 2013 #159
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #141
Sugarcoated Jan 2013 #157
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #11
Recursion Jan 2013 #17
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #36
Recursion Jan 2013 #39
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #44
Recursion Jan 2013 #47
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #94
Recursion Jan 2013 #96
NickB79 Jan 2013 #144
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #145
intaglio Jan 2013 #14
Recursion Jan 2013 #19
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #27
Recursion Jan 2013 #41
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #48
99Forever Jan 2013 #35
Recursion Jan 2013 #42
progressoid Jan 2013 #76
Recursion Jan 2013 #80
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #127
Recursion Jan 2013 #128
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #131
amandabeech Jan 2013 #129
Recursion Jan 2013 #132
amandabeech Jan 2013 #138
Igel Jan 2013 #149
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #130
Dark n Stormy Knight Jan 2013 #153
pnwmom Jan 2013 #146
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #2
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #3
Recursion Jan 2013 #7
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #9
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #16
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #57
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #72
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #126
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #133
spanone Jan 2013 #5
malaise Jan 2013 #6
Recursion Jan 2013 #8
malaise Jan 2013 #18
Recursion Jan 2013 #24
malaise Jan 2013 #31
Recursion Jan 2013 #43
malaise Jan 2013 #46
markpkessinger Jan 2013 #68
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #152
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #21
Beaverhausen Jan 2013 #25
Recursion Jan 2013 #33
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #58
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #28
Recursion Jan 2013 #45
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #59
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #83
Recursion Jan 2013 #134
amandabeech Jan 2013 #140
Politicalboi Jan 2013 #29
Recursion Jan 2013 #38
arely staircase Jan 2013 #81
Recursion Jan 2013 #85
arely staircase Jan 2013 #93
Recursion Jan 2013 #95
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #15
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #20
Recursion Jan 2013 #49
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #64
Recursion Jan 2013 #65
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #70
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #61
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #67
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #75
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #79
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #84
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #86
HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #125
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #135
Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #154
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #155
Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #156
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #158
Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #162
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #163
malaise Jan 2013 #22
Recursion Jan 2013 #50
malaise Jan 2013 #60
Recursion Jan 2013 #63
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #26
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #62
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #98
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #12
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #53
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #78
MyNameGoesHere Jan 2013 #23
Politicalboi Jan 2013 #37
Recursion Jan 2013 #91
bunnies Jan 2013 #122
Recursion Jan 2013 #123
tantric calvinist Jan 2013 #30
Beaverhausen Jan 2013 #40
jillan Jan 2013 #32
malaise Jan 2013 #34
Recursion Jan 2013 #54
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #51
Beaverhausen Jan 2013 #55
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #150
Recursion Jan 2013 #56
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #71
gulliver Jan 2013 #66
ananda Jan 2013 #73
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #136
Recursion Jan 2013 #77
gulliver Jan 2013 #111
Recursion Jan 2013 #112
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #89
gulliver Jan 2013 #113
Paladin Jan 2013 #69
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #107
Paladin Jan 2013 #119
Recursion Jan 2013 #124
markpkessinger Jan 2013 #90
Recursion Jan 2013 #92
markpkessinger Jan 2013 #99
Paladin Jan 2013 #108
Recursion Jan 2013 #109
Paladin Jan 2013 #118
Recursion Jan 2013 #120
graham4anything Jan 2013 #82
sasha031 Jan 2013 #87
samsingh Jan 2013 #97
samsingh Jan 2013 #100
Recursion Jan 2013 #101
samsingh Jan 2013 #104
Recursion Jan 2013 #105
jberryhill Jan 2013 #102
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #103
jberryhill Jan 2013 #106
deathrind Jan 2013 #110
Recursion Jan 2013 #121
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #114
longship Jan 2013 #116
Turbineguy Jan 2013 #117
wercal Jan 2013 #137
Recursion Jan 2013 #139
wercal Jan 2013 #143
Special Agent Oso Jan 2013 #142
Separation Jan 2013 #148
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #160
AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #161
bigbas175 Jan 2013 #164
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #165

Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:15 PM

1. The rifle Lanza used was neither an assault rifle nor an assault weapon

Connecticut has an AWB and the rifle was legal in CT.

It would have been an assault weapon if it had a bayonet lug.

Under Feinstein's proposed ban, it would be an assault weapon until it got a differently-shaped grip.

If they're saying he didn't use the rifle, that goes against what the coroner said the next day, but a lot of those early things have been wrong; I just haven't heard anything else since then. But if he did use the rifle, the fact remains that it was neither an assault rifle nor an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:19 PM

4. correct

them pesky bayonet lugs help define assault weapon and assault rifle is fully select fire fully automatic or burst fire capable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

10. then how were these children and teachers assaulted?

and tore to shreds.

obliterated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:22 PM

13. With a firearm. It's not like "non-assault weapons" are less deadly (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:20 PM

88. He used a musket, silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:31 PM

115. Gun nutters like to play games with semantics

It was a fucking assault weapon. Period. We all know what we'rettalking about, despite the gungeoneers attempts to throw up a smokescreen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:40 AM

147. Of course it's semantics.

Every time you speak or write you're using semantics. It's basically matching meaning with form. That's something many have difficult with because it requires knowing both and what the relation is between them.

The "game" is when a word has a set semantic meaning and you decide to ignore it and tacitly redefine it. Then the non-serious approach is on the part of the fuzzy-minded user, the one who can't be bothered to understand how a word is used and often has no idea what, exactly, s/he has in mind because there's a shallowness of knowledge displayed in the imprecision.

You can often get by with imprecision if the context fills in the gaps. On this board, there's not enough context. You read posts and they agree on emotion and the need to Do Something. That "something" is always "banning" something. As soon as details matter--a rare occurrence--you find that few have a clue what they're talking about. There's an appearance of being a high-information poster, but in the end they're often just "high-outrage" posters with little information. Poseurs, in a word.

"Assault weapon" has a set of precise meanings. Why? Because when the term was made up, it was coined to "hold" those meanings and none others. To let it drift from that range of meanings is to let it mean "any weapon that is or can be used in an assault." That's basically redundant with the meaning of the word "weapon." We usually want it to be a rifle of some kind, but after that it gets to contain more emotion and heat than knowledge and light. The legislators were oddly wise enough to not try to redefine "automatic rifle" or to use it without the redefinition.

"Assault rifle" was calqued from the German. Has to be automatic with a semi-automatic setting. And be a rifle. A few other details have to hold. They're rare.

It's not hard. Just requires a bit of knowledge, that's all. And enough interest to try to be precise and accurate in making one's self understood. But if it's something that's important enough to talk about, it's important enough to make sense about.

The gun Lanza used wasn't an automatic rifle, by any stretch of a moderately informed imagination. It wasn't an assault weapon, in the usual accepted meaning of the squirrelly word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #147)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:13 AM

151. Ok, so it wouldn't be an "assault weapon" in CT, but it would be in CA

Furthermore absent the full auto selector, it's basically not much different than how the German's defined the assault rifle some 70 years ago.

So with your lengthy post you've managed to make yourself well understood (I guess), and you demonstrated exactly what the previous poster was talking about.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #151)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:02 PM

159. haha

Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:23 PM

141. With a gun. I suspect you already knew that and were being disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #141)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:01 PM

157. A gun that shoots lots of bullets really, really fast without having to reload for a while

THAT kind of gun . . . but I suspect you already knew that and were being disingenuous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

11. I suppose the answer would be in what CT defines an AW as

It may be different then the former Federal definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:24 PM

17. No, it's the same. That Bushmaster was legal under the Federal AWB

It would have been illegal with a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, or a folding stock.

Under Feinstein's proposed ban, it would be illegal until it gets a differently-shaped grip and a new brand name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 PM

36. Please see the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

"The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:32 PM

39. That's the magazine, not the weapon. This is part of the problem

(I'm all for magazine size restrictions, incidentally, and 10 seems like a good one.)

The weapon itself doesn't hold any rounds (except 1 in its chamber). It has a hole that you can fit a separate magazine that does hold bullets into. That magazine usually isn't even made by the same manufacturer. So, really, for any gun that can accept a detachable magazine, there's no particular upward limit to how many bullets it can fire before reloading. This is why I like restricting magazine sizes, but that's only related to the question of assault weapons insofar as they're generally introduced in the same legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:36 PM

44. In Mass, where we still have the original AWB...

... a magazine with more then a 10 round magazine would classify that weapon as an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:39 PM

47. Actually it's just the magazine itself that would be illegal

The weapon is an assault weapon or not based on its having two or more of a list of features (bayonet lug, pistol grip, threaded barrel, etc., etc.). It's the magazine that's illegal in that case; it's a separate thing from the weapon, legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:33 PM

94. And this is one of the problems, to be honest

The laws are so varied by state and so ill defined that it creates alot of confusion and gets everyone cause up in debates over semantics really.

We need federal, nationwide, uniform laws on weapons.


I believe the the gun lobbies continually push for this type of confusion to keep people distracted from making real changes and having real discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:35 PM

96. No disagreement there

We need either Federal pre-emption or a Uniform Firearms Code enacted by all the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:59 PM

144. Any 30-rd magazine made before 1994 was grandfathered in

If the magazines used in Lanza's rifle were old enough, they too would be legal in CT. Not sure how Mass. does it these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #144)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:08 PM

145. That is the case in MA

When I took my handgun safety course the instructor said there aren't many of them left around here. I would think that if the same was implemented countrywide in a few decades they would indeed be not many left since they can't be sold or transferred legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:23 PM

14. FFS

so a simple piece of filing makes this "not an assault weapon". Is this in the same way that "not having 2 parents with American nationality" makes the President "not a natural born American" to the lunatic Birthers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

19. Why do you think we keep saying it's a stupid law?

It's a regulation of what semi-automatic rifles can look like, but the base thinks it's a ban on them entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 PM

27. what filing are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:33 PM

41. Notionally "filing off" a bayonet lug; I think I said that upthread

Obviously people didn't literally file down bayonet lugs; I was just making a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:39 PM

48. sorry missed that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 PM

35. Thank you for your contribution to the discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:34 PM

42. You know, a lot of pro-gun control people have constructively engaged with me on this

Even on this thread.

If you want to put your fingers in your ears and keep pretending the AWB does what you want it to, that's your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:11 PM

76. I bet that's a relief the kids' parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:13 PM

80. I doubt it, particularly since we're advocating the wrong thing

The rifle was already legal in Connecticut, which continued the '94 ban at the state level.

If Feinstein's proposed ban passes, it will have to have a differently-shaped grip to be legal.

Do you think it's more disrespectful to those parents to point this out, or to willfully ignore this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:57 PM

127. How would you change Feinsteins proposal

To include weapon used in sandy hook?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #127)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:00 PM

128. I'd ban semi-autos with detachable magazines

Feinstein's law is a regulation of what they can look like. It's not an issue of loopholes; it's a fundamentally dumb law at its core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:06 PM

131. Good to know!

If more people understood that I'm sure they would support efforts to change her law so that's it's something actually effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:05 PM

129. Thanks for your info.

I've been completely confused by references to "assault rifles" that do not define the term in the slightest.

My late father and many of my adult male relatives were either hunters, sport shooters (skeet and target) or both. As a consequence, I seem to have a different attitude toward firearms than many people here although I do not and never have owned a firearm myself.

It seems rather bizarre to me to have the shape of the grip determining what is and is not an assault rifle and the caliber of the ammunition and power of the firearm apparently overlooked.

Are there any proposed regulations out there that would consider caliber and power of the gun in question rather than what seem to be largely cosmetic issues to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:24 PM

132. Caliber probably isn't the issue

Assault weapons are for the most part low-caliber. It's just that they can fire every time you pull the trigger and you can replace the magazine quickly. So that's a lot of bullets in a short time, if you have magazines pre-loaded.

The good news is, that capability is very easy to define. No worries about grip shapes or bayonet lugs.

Unfortunately, that's also the majority of firearms people own, so it's a haul politically, but it's the good fight, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #132)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:58 PM

138. "They can fire every time you pull the trigger."

Yes, lots of people own semi-automatics, and of course, not all of them come in matt-black with a pistol grip.

Please keep pushing the idea of restricting high-capacity magazines. It seems to be applicable to ALL semi-automatics, not just ones that make the owner look like Rambo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #129)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:47 AM

149. "Assault rifle" comes pre-defined.

It's had the same meaning since before Kennedy was president. It hasn't been redefined in the law, by the military, by manufacturers, or by gun enthusiasts.

It's been misconstrued by people who read just for the "gist" of what's said and fill in the gaps based on not-so-much background information.

"Assault weapon" is what a lot of people have been bandying around. It's fairly well defined, but it's really a small set of bad definitions that they use. Since it requires even more background information people have really let their implicit definition of the term slide around a lot. They assume they know what it must mean when really they don't.

"Assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are often confused.

Heck, a lot of people don't even know what a rifle is and how it differs from a musket. Too much work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:05 PM

130. Good point.

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

State compliant Bushmasters. ACR = Adaptive Combat Rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #130)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:48 AM

153. Wow. That is some ugly shit. If all the time and money spent on the creation and production of the

instruments of death were spent on the creation and production of the instruments of peace, the world would be a much better place in which to live freely and pursue happiness.

Well, except for the people whose happiness depends upon the proliferation of the instruments of death. But, hey, fuck those people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:36 PM

146. No one outside the gun community cares about splitting hairs on the definition --

-- if the gun can mow down dozens of people in seconds, it should be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:17 PM

2. Have Pete show his facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:19 PM

3. Early on

The coroner said e extracted .223 ammo, that is your proof.


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=meV0UYxhxeY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmeV0UYxhxeY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:20 PM

7. A lot of things were said early on

If this is actually a new confirmation that the rifle was found in the car, then the coroner was wrong (and I haven't seen the coroner's official report, so I don't know what it contains; I just know what he said on camera the next day).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

9. I am sure you are correct

but technically there was no "assault rifle" used. it was a legal semi-automatic rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:23 PM

16. The definition is not yours, but the state

Or historical. This s a descendant of Armorlite AR in the 1950s which s also a descendant of the stumweber.

Regardless the muzzle velocity and ammo s the exact same muzzle velocity and ammo as the M-16, and these "deficient" weapons are found in combat zones around te world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:49 PM

57. I think this

is federal and state law that defines this. Not my definition. I may be wrong. but since this weapon only fires in semi-automatic mode as all other semi-automatic rifles do, it is by federal ATF regulation not an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:06 PM

72. And that my dear s about to change

You do not need an AR-15 to go hunting. And the .223 sucks for large game anyhow.

Oh and in a few states that gun straddles the line anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:56 PM

126. well it is not just the .223 that the AR-15 can fire



Due to the rifle's modular design, one upper receiver can quickly and easily be substituted for another. There are many aftermarket upper receivers that incorporate barrels of different weights, lengths and calibers. Some available calibers for the AR-15 platform are the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua, 6.8 mm Remington SPC, .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG. It is not recommended to chamber the 5.56x45 NATO into a rifle designated .223 Remington, due to the increased chamber pressure in the 5.56mm cartridges; the two calibers are similar, but not identical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #126)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:31 PM

133. Yup, and...I know all this.

Why it is very much a favorite of multiple armies...(no, not the civilian version, which only can do semi automatic, but the military version with a selector switch)

Let me repeat this, so it's crystal cleat...the PLATFORM does not belong in civilian hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:19 PM

5. wasn't it a BB gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:20 PM

6. THey were killed with a Bushmaster

Dr Wayne Carver made that clear
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/medical-examiner-sandy-hook-victims-died-multiple-gunshot-211722237.html

-Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner investigating Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said autopsies completed on 20 children and six adults on Saturday showed they were killed with multiple bullets fired by a rifle at close range.

"I've been at this for a third of a century and my sensibilities may not be those of the average man, but this probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues have seen," Carver told reporters gathered at Treadwell Park, less than a mile from the school where the shooting occurred.

The veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. In what appeared to be an uncomfortable moment for Carver, he said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle, one of at least two weapons Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old suspected shooter, used to commit one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.

Fugg the spin!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

8. Which is neither an assault rifle nor an assault weapon (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:24 PM

18. Go tell that the parents who had to watch their children's bodies blown to bits

with limbs shattered and parts of their faces missing.
You go tell then the Bushmaster is not an assault rifle.

Fuck the NRA!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

24. Does tragedy change the meaning of words? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:27 PM

31. The Bushmaster is an assault rifle n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:35 PM

43. No. You can't just redefine things.

It's simply not an assault rifle, or an assault weapon. Both of those terms (in Connecticut at least) have legal meanings. Connecticut even bans assault weapons, which is why his rifle couldn't have a bayonet lug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:38 PM

46. Go tell that to the NRA n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:03 PM

68. Recusion is making a valid point

I am certainly on board with the need to find a way to reign in these weapons. But when it comes to crafting legislation, definitions become extremely important. To you, it may seem like ridiculous quibbling over semantics to argue whether Adam Lanza's Bushmaster was an assault weapon or not. But I promise you, if some kind of ban on certain types or classes of firearms is enacted, if there is any grey area whatsoever concerning the definition of what firearms fall into the banned category, then, in some future trial, "ridiculous quibbling over semantics" will turn into the very core of a defense attorney's case, as that attorney seeks to exploit even the slightest ambiguity of statutory language in defense of his or her client. Overheated, emotionally-laden remarks such as "Tell that to the mothers children who...", really do not advance the cause of arriving at a workable response to the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:18 AM

152. Yes, well we've been hearing this "point" from the gun proliferates for some time

Meanwhile the rest of the civilized world has managed to solve their gun problem while people in the US want to argue just what the fuck we should call a Bushmaster. Doesn't seem all that hard to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

21. They would depend on how AW is being defined

In CT a 30 round magazine is legal and does not make the weapon an assault weapon.

The same rifle in Massachusetts with a 30 round magazine would be illegal and considered an assault weapon.

The former Federal AWB also limited the magazines to 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 PM

25. so Lanza had to pull the trigger for each bullet fired?

and how many rounds are in the gun of this type? Clearly I know nothing about guns and want to use the correct terminology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:28 PM

33. Sure, but that's true for assault weapons too.

Assault weapons aren't faster-firing than non-assault weapons, they have "features" that the law deems military, like bayonet lugs or grips of a certain shape.

how many rounds are in the gun of this type?

The magazine is detachable, so it depends on what kind of magazine you buy. Connecticut IIRC doesn't restrict magazine size; I also haven't heard what size magazine(s) he used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:52 PM

58. correct

one pull of the trigger, one round fired. Same as all semi-automatic rifles, even conventional looking hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 PM

28. However Much It Looks Like One, Sir....

The cosmetic point, you know, works both ways. People buy these things for the look, because they think they look fierce and war-like, and this attraction to image suggests strongly there are motives under the surface, so to speak, for the purchase of these items, and the extraordinary attachment many possessing them display towards them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:37 PM

45. I grant that point, I just think marketers will always find a way to meet that

You have gotten me to think about this, though. I also think as long as gunmakers can make black polymer-bodied rifles, they will find a way to make them look "military", whatever restrictions we set.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:44 PM

52. What Interests Me, Sir, Is The Window It Opens Into Motivation

Because the real problem we face here is an attachment to weaponry that is not rational in its intensity. The gun is serving as a symbol, a talisman, and this is its true value, to those who dedicate such time and energy to them, and 'defense' of their 'right' to them, not any actual practical utility they offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:53 PM

59. It's a talisman for everybody, I'll grant

For that matter, one tribe feeling revulsion and another tribe feeling attraction, regardless of any utility, is probably as good a definition of Talisman as there is.

But neither our revulsion towards these weapons, nor their attraction, change the fact that weapons classified as assault weapons are not more or less deadly than other weapons of the same capabilities.

Should laws be used on totems, then? Would that solve more problems than it causes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:15 PM

83. The Point You Seem To Be Sliding Over, Sir

Is that these things have only emotional value to their enthusiasts, not practical value. Policy should not be made in accordance with people's fantasy lives; if it is, it will never match actual conditions and needs.

We both know there is nothing these tricked out long guns do in practical use, that could not be done equally well by a bolt or lever action rifle with a tube feed, or a five or six round clip. No need of hunting, or particular pleasure in target shooting, or, for that matter, of potential home defense use, would not be met adequately by such weapons.

What these tricked out pieces are sold for is to serve as props in a fantasy life, to give the purchaser something solid to which dreams of being an action hero, being a warrior, ever-victorious, better than any of the rest, can be attached to.

What really needs to be overthrown is this culture of fantasy omnipotence. It really ought to be a matter for laughter, for public scorn, an occasion for pattings on the head and rollings of the eyes, when a man says he 'needs' a gun that looks like an army equipment, insists he has to have, will never surrender it, has a right to it that cannot be restricted, that he will defend us all against tyranny with it. Because it is a plain evidence of a mental imbalance, of a privileging of fantasy over reality, of a deliberate choice to dwell in delusion rather than face up to the facts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:32 PM

134. Thought experiment: ban all features except the pistol grip

That actually has a use, and is a safety feature. Would that be acceptible for your purposes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:20 PM

140. The culture you attack manifests itself in many ways, not just in the choice

to own a firearm or in the appearance of such firearms.

Do you propose other methods of tempering the culture to which you object?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 PM

29. It needs to be

This is silly. If the gun can fire so many rounds in a short amount of time we need to call them assault weapons no matter what. I'm not disagreeing with you, but we need sensible laws that put those type of weapons in the assault category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 PM

38. That is a *great* idea, and it's not what any proposed AWB has ever done

All semi-automatics with separate magazines are capable of firing at the same speed (more or less).

That's a much simpler class of weapons to ban, too, from a law-writing perspective.

The downside is it's the majority of guns currently owned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:14 PM

81. what if you made the time for max rounds fired 1 minute?

and any weapon that could fire over a certain number rounds per minute would be illegal. therefore someone's semi-auto shotgun would not fall under the law because though it may cycle rounds as fast as a bushmaster, the time it would take to reload would prevent the 1 minute liit from being crossed. as for that bushmaster? well if you are in possession of it AND a lip that would allow you to exceed the rounds per minute rule, you are in possession of an illegal assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:16 PM

85. It's a thought; you're going to wind up in the same place, though, I think

That is, semi-autos with detachable magazines. They can all fire at the same speed (roughly) and it's significantly higher than any other class of generally available weapon (like you point out, semi-autos with fixed or internal magazines take long enough to reload to slow things down).

This is why I dislike dishonest legislating, which is what we did 20 years ago. The base thinks we banned rapid-firing weapons. We didn't; we controlled what they can look like. Now we're trying to do that again, and it's going to be just as pointless, and derail actual useful gun control legislation just as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:32 PM

93. but the semi-autos with detachable magazines would be legal or illegal depending

on the clip you have with it (be that at the range, in the woods hunting, or stored in your home.) if you have a weapon and a magazine that will fit it that allows it to fire over such and such rounds per minute it is illegal. if you have that same weapon and only a magazine that allows below so many rounds per minute you are fine. if you have that weapon and 10 loaded magazines of five rounds each that would allow you to crank out the prohibited number of rounds per minute by switching out clips quickly, you are now illegal again. see this way the law focuses on what an assault weapon really is (commonsensically) a weapon that can put out large amounts of ordinance over a sustained period of time - like in a battle or a schoolhouse massacre. who cares what it looks like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:34 PM

95. Who cares what it looks like

who cares what it looks like?

Unfortunately, our party does right now; it's our signature piece of legislation and it's been on our platform for decades.

I see your point about magazines; and like I said I'm in favor of magazine size restrictions (you also seem to bring in how many magazines you have with you at a given time; I'm open to that but I'm not sure it's very practical). But at that point the weapon itself doesn't matter at all; you're just limiting magazine sizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:23 PM

15. it was a semi-automatic rifle

did not meet the standards in the state or federal law to be termed assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

20. Once again, same muzzle velocity

And ammo as an m-16. So what if it can only pump out 4-6 rounds a second?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:42 PM

49. That's a fair point, and one no legislator has deemed worthy of consideration

Why not ban .223 centerfire rifles? Or centerfire rifles in general? Or semi-automatics in general.

Our decision to try to dishonestly market a restriction on how semi-automatics can look as a "ban" on semi-automatics has left us with a base that wants to advocate but is grievously misinformed on what it's actually advocating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:00 PM

64. Centerfire rifles are just about all hunting rifles.

Banning the .223 is possible. It's not a good deer round and is restricted for that purpose in some states. The .308 and .30-06 are good hunting rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:01 PM

65. And significantly more deadly

It seems perverse to require deadlier ammo..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:04 PM

70. You want a clean kill on the deer.

A round too small can cause suffering for the deer and will likely force the hunter to track it down to finish it off. You want to be humane in killing your food, whether it be deer or farm animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:55 PM

61. There is a slight difference.

A barrel designed for .223 cannot shoot the military ammo safely, and the combustion pressure is higher in NATO 5.56 rounds. It's usually never noticed as both can fire the .223, which are the only rounds commonly available to civilians. That's all that prevents idiots who think themselves soldiers from hurting themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:03 PM

67. Yup, why we have seen bad guys take magazines

From dead soldiers and use it in actual combat zones around the world.

Highly unconvincing as an argument, to be honest.


And actual hard core gunners believe they are soldiers in the coming revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:07 PM

75. It's unclear what the first point is.

We (NATO) use a different round than most of the world. Our opponents are usually using an AK-47 variant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:12 PM

79. Really? We have seen these civilian versions

Of the m-4 and M-16 around the word too... They are in the weapons trade and the black market

Unless I am wrong, these two still use .223.

Granted, AKs and their clones are all over as well. The later many a times originating in the US as well, which is seen as a main market for Russian weapons manufacturers. I know, I know, am issue most Americans do not want to even acknowledge is real.

My favorite though are the Barrett 50 Cal. I guess those ducks are extra armored these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:15 PM

84. Some of the civilian versions use 5.56 NATO chambered barrels.

That barrel can shoot either round safely. The danger is having a .223 chambered barrel and using military grade 5.56x45 ammo. It's only a matter of time till it fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:17 PM

86. In the middle of a shoot out

I guess this s foreign land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:50 PM

125. Thats unlikely.

The AK47 is much more common around the world, especially in trouble zones because it's much cheaper than M16s and even semi-autos (AKs can cost as little as $25 in third-world countries). AKs use a larger caliber round than NATO or .223 rounds. Plus, its unlikely the magazines are even interchangable. So an enemy combatant that picks up a US soldier's magazine is merely picking up a souveneir, not a useful item.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:33 PM

135. Hmm, hum, I know we all had a hell of an

Imagination...when we saw both the AK derivatives "Cuerno de Chivo) and the ARs...I know, we all had a hell of an imagination. My all time fav was the Barrett though, just a barrel of fun!



I realize this is a reality gun fans like to hide the head from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:27 AM

154. Really?? Is that your final answer?

Then why is it that I can buy a Sig Sauer M400 at my local WALMART that shoots both .223 *and* 5.56 NATO??

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-M400-with-Prismatic-Scope/21677320

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #154)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:05 AM

155. Yes, that is my final answer.

It has a 5.56 NATO chambered barrel. That can shoot both .223 and NATO rounds. It's only a .223 barrel that cannot handle military grade ammo.

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sigm400.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #155)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:56 PM

156. From your link.....

THE SIGM400 SERIES TACTICAL RIFLE, designed for use in law enforcement, military operations, or the sporting field as well as competitive shooting. The SIGM400 is a true AR platform tactical rifle. Provides unparalleled accuracy, with a 16" chrome-lined and phosphate coated barrel that provides maximum durability and corrosion resistance. A 7075-T6 aircraft grade aluminum forged lower receiver adds to the durability and reliability.

Features
- Direct impingement gas operating system with rotating locking bolt
- 5.56 x 45 mm NATO Chrome-lined barrels with phosphate finish
- Accepts most M16 type magazines
- A2 Type flash supressor
- "F" marked fixed front sight
http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/sigm400-classic.aspx








Should I keep going? You did nothing but enhance my claim...

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #156)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:01 PM

158. Keep going. See post #84

Your making my point as well. There are barrels made only for .223 Remington, and those cannot shoot the 5.56 ammo safely. I know this because it was taught in the mandated safety course I had to take in Connecticut.

And no, I don't own am AR-15. I have a bolt action rifle for hunting. But chamber differences was stressed as a safety issue. Some rounds look similar, but can result in damage or injury if inserted into a chamber made for another round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #158)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:37 PM

162. No, I'm not making your point as well. IF you bothered to click my links

you would see that they are all 5.56 NATO caliber. They say absolutely NOTHING about a .223, though they do have some rifles in .223 caliber for sale too... but they DO NOT say ".223 and/or 5.56 NATO"

The ones I posted simply say "- 5.56 x 45 mm NATO Chrome-lined barrels with phosphate finish" and "Caliber - 5.56 NATO"...

Click the links and try reading for comprehension...

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #162)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:45 PM

163. My comprehension is just fine.

The SIG M400 rifle is a direct impingment rifle with a rotary bolt mechanism capable of semi-automatic or full automatic
fire operation. Semi-Automatic is defined as one round being fired each time the trigger is pressed to the rear until the
magazine is depleted of ammunition. The rifle is chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO and is compatible with .223 Remington
ammunition.


http://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/CmsContent/documents/M400_MiniManual_HR.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

22. I'll take the doctor's word over yours thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:42 PM

50. The doctor never said it was an assault rifle or assault weapon

Why are you so up in arms about phrases that you won't bother to learn the meaning of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:54 PM

60. He did

I watched the press conference

His words are also in the article I posted.

That slaughter was the last straw in my book. I have no more tolerance for semantics and/or obfuscation about slaughter weapons. Ban them! Ban the magazines of slaughter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:56 PM

63. He said it was the rifle. And the rifle isn't an assault rifle or an assault weapon.

Why is it so important to you to attach either of those phrases to the weapon, when neither legally applies currently, and doing so doesn't change what happened?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:26 PM

26. The 30 round magazine was legal in CT but would have been illegal under the Fed AWB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:55 PM

62. No it may not have been illegal

all pre-ban magazines, millions of them were perfectly legal to own and use

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:36 PM

98. If the fed ban had stayed in place there wouldn't still be alot of pre-bans around

Mass never got rid of the ban and there aren't a whole lot of people here left with the pre-ban magazines after 20 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:22 PM

12. Initial reporting by the press was especially bad

in the hours and days after the tragedy with a lot of misinformation given in the rush to be the first with breaking news:

Here is the Today show saying that no semi-automatic rifle was used: &feature=player_embedded

I have heard of similar reports on other major media, including I believe, MSNBC.

Since the final police report has not been published, it leaves room for a great deal of speculation on BOTH sides and with major media sources reporting, at least initially, that no semi-automatic rifles were used, it is easy for the rumors to start.

I would also remind people here on DU that there were a number of threads on DU2 that stated that Bush would declare martial law and refuse to allow President Obama to assume office in 2008.

Conspiracy theories are not the sole province of those on the far right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:46 PM

53. The Bushmaster was found inside the school

See #51.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:12 PM

78. Where did I say it wasn't?

I merely pointed out that the Today show stated that it was 4 handguns and they quoted Federal law enforcement as one of the reasons for all the wild speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:25 PM

23. I don't know or care. Shot in the face is shot in the face.

The cause is an out of control gun nuttery that has taken over this country. They fail to understand that the 2nd amendment belongs to over 300 million citizens. Not the 4 million loud mouths of the nra. When the gun nuttery refuses to help society fix this problem, the majority will take your guns away. The constitution was written on parchment not stone tablets. And I have a big damn eraser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 PM

37. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:23 PM

91. I completely agree

Personally, I think if someone can be trusted with a weapon, they can be trusted with a weapon, and if they can't, they can't. I'm much more concerned about that than what particular detailed types of weapons they can have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:28 PM

122. I think you've really hit on something here.

"I think if someone can be trusted with a weapon, they can be trusted with a weapon, and if they can't, they can't". I couldnt agree more.
We both know a .45 hollowpoint will do exceedingly more damage than .223 despite the fact that the .45 is aestheticlly more acceptable. Unfortunately though, there really isnt any way to know whether someone should be trusted or not. Is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:34 PM

123. Not perfectly. CDC research can help

Now that we're actually doing research again, we may find better predictors than the rather blunt ones we have now.

All sales going through an FFL might be a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:27 PM

30. Crank up the Youtube, my friend.

 

Look up Sandy Hook Coroner (with the last name CARVER, by coincidink )

In addition to his highly bizarre, MK Ultra'd delivery, he contradicted the Official Story more than once. He said that Lanza had NOT died of a self-inflicted gunshot (very important) and there was also a discrepancy with the weapon(s) used...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tantric calvinist (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:33 PM

40. I know- but they post a video of Pete Williams saying the handguns were found and not a rifle

I heard the coroner say it was a 'long gun' at the press conference.

BTW welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:27 PM

32. One kid was shot 11 times. 11 times. If that is not an assault rifle, than I don't know what is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 PM

34. I'll join you in banging my head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:47 PM

54. Being an assault weapon has *nothing* to do with how many bullets a gun can fire. Nothing.

Edit: this was brusque as first written.

I'm upset too. Obviously I'm upset about the shootings that happen, but I'm also upset that our party has, I'm going to be blunt here, lied to the base and so we're winding up pushing very hard for laws that don't do what we think they do.

There's a class of weapons that can fire once every time you pull the trigger, and that fire from boxes of bullets that you can replace.

These can fire a lot of rounds in a short period of time. That's a bad thing.

But no matter how angry it makes people when I point this out, the fact remains that the various Federal and State Assault Weapons Ban do not ban that kind of weapon. They regulate what that kind of weapon can look like.

So Lanza's rifle wasn't an assault weapon because it didn't have a bayonet lug. Under the proposed Feinstein ban, it will have to have a differently shaped grip.

If you advocate a renewal of the 94 assault weapons ban, you're advocating keeping Lanza's rifle legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:43 PM

51. CT State Police: UPDATE on weapons used (1/18/13)

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **


STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;
INVESTIGATION CONTINUES


In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.


Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun


Seized from suspectís car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)


This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance


http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:47 PM

55. thank you!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:58 AM

150. You're welcome, Beaverhausen

Ct State Police put out the specific info on the weapons early on, but that has since been overwhelmed by the BS claims that only handguns were found in the school and that the Bushmaster was in the car trunk--using the discredited early media reports to catapult the propaganda. The lies were so blatant that the State Police took the unusual step of issuing this press release to reiterate their findings on the weapons.

You might consider adding this info to your OP, as my post in this long thread is easily overlooked by many.

Someday soon, I hope, we'll have some gains to celebrate--perhaps with an Irish Coffee toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:47 PM

56. Good catch, thanks!

I was wondering if something new had come up on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:05 PM

71. I remember the State Police Sargeant speaking to the public...

reported this early on. Thank you. You just saved me a lot of time looking it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:02 PM

66. Sophism and obscurantism

The Republicans who are backing the NRA down the line on all of this foolishness think it makes a difference if you have a "bayonet lug" or not. It reminds me of something out of Monty Python. The NRA's greasy lobbyists have been making these absurd "devils on the head of a pin" arguments for a couple decades, and look where it has landed our country.

Seriously, "the rifle was outside in the trunk of the car" of a maniac who murdered children, and that means that the rifle is ok. What kind of idiot makes an argument like that? Maybe if Lanza had more time, he would have run out to his car. Then, per the numbskulls, there would have been an argument against the rifle.

And, my goodness, it wasn't technically an "assault weapon" if the framistat bolt isn't upright near the frobnication spring. These people are complete imbeciles, intellectually defenseless, yet standing there with their little fists in the air. Yes, Virginia, you can change the definition of words, legally and culturally. Yes, you can make assault weapons illegal. Yes, you can keep modifying the law to include other weapons and other features in the banned categories.

Why all this quibbling anyway? If I were an employer, I would find a reason to fire anyone who had one of these pervo weapons. If I saw one at a guy's house (or in his car, or slung over his back in a J.C.Penney), I would find a way for that fact to turn up in Google so that other people could ID him, fire him, divorce him, whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:06 PM

73. Thank you.

I am sick and tired of the rightwing racist idiot gun nutters and all their obfuscations and diversions.

It WAS an assault weapon. Fuck what the law or some nitpicky NRA constructed law says!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:39 PM

136. name calling

people with another point of view from yours does not help things out here. All of us want to get this fixed and I would like to get it right the first time rather than having to fix a flawed law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:11 PM

77. *WE'RE THE ONES WHO WROTE THE LAW*

That was our side. Our party.

If you think banning something based on having a bayonet lug is stupid, why do you support the AWB, which does precisely that?

The AWB does not ban guns based on how rapidly they can fire. It does not ban guns based on how deadly they are. It bans them based on a specific and frankly silly list of features.

Yes, you can keep modifying the law to include other weapons and other features in the banned categories.

Why not just ban all guns that are capable of firing a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time? Why are you trying to regulate what those firearms can look like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:08 PM

111. Easy there, pardner. No need to shout.

Of course the Democrats are the ones who end up doing the right thing and banning assault weapons. Republicans just do whatever the NRA lobbyist crazies tell them to do. So there will be no law at all if Republicans have their way.

And yes, I am all for banning guns capable of firing a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time, but I am against sophistry and obscurantism, and you are unfortunately straying into it.

Form follows function. These weapons look the way they do, because they are designed to perform a military task. It's not like I'm against putting Call of Duty decals on a deer rifle. If you regulate the allowed design of a firearm, of course you regulate the way it looks. You are engaging in sophistry.

BTW, I never said anything about supporting any version of any AWB proposed by anyone. I am for banning these weapons by form and function, using any design differentiators that can be found. And I am open to the law giving agencies wide latitude to immediately respond to industry attempts at finding loopholes. If I find anything ridiculous, it is the possibility of grandfathering in existing weapons. That's even more ridiculous than bayonet lugs.

But do I think we could do better if we didn't have Republicans fighting and sabotaging any rational attempts at assault weapons control? Obviously. I blame the Republicans if we get no AWB. And I blame Republicans for any weaknesses in any AWB we get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #111)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:11 PM

112. I can't agree with the last sentence. The AWB is by nature weak

Strong bans like the NFA ban based on capability. Banning based on form a) doesn't address what's important and b) devolves into a cat and mouse with manufacturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:21 PM

89. More likely it would be YOU that was fired,

and probably sued successfully in court as well. Fortunately for all concerned, it is unlikely you'll be given such a position of responsibility anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:11 PM

113. I'll take my chances.

The world has changed. It's not just me. It won't be long before having an assault weapon in your house will make you as popular as having kiddie porn. All of these guns that are flying off of the shelves now are going to be sold at buybacks for a tenth of their purchase price. Their current buyers are just gun industry chumps. I feel sorry for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:03 PM

69. Don't Be Fooled. The Gun Activists Are Trying To Control The Vocabulary, And Thus The Argument.


Just because the NRA doesn't like us using the "assault rifle" terminology, doesn't mean we can't use it. On this thread, you see posters who have been squealing non-stop elsewhere about the gun control movement's attention to "cosmetic features" of firearms. To them, a 30-round magazine constitutes a "cosmetic feature." OK, fair enough---full-automatic fire capability is "cosmetic" as well, and a Bushmaster AR-15 thus qualifies as an assault rifle. End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:07 PM

74. It wasn't "gun activists" who introduced the term "assault weapons", though

To them, a 30-round magazine constitutes a "cosmetic feature."

No, and a lot of us support restricting magazine size. The problem with a detachable magazine, though, is that it's not a feature of a weapon. If a weapon can accept detachable magazines, it can accept any size magazine. Which is why limiting magazine size is a good idea.

full-automatic fire capability is "cosmetic" as well

Nope. Nobody has said that. It's a clearly-defined capability, and it's been successfully regulated for 80 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:49 PM

107. I have not seen one person

that is against limiting magazine size. numbers in a magazine yes. will it work or not that is up for discussion. Call it what you want and when we get another SCREWED up law. Whine about it when it fails. I see a number of gun owners that are trying to help out and just being yelled at for being NRA shrills spouting talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:13 PM

119. And I Have Seen Any Number Of DU Gun Control Advocates.....


....dismissed as dumbfucks who are unworthy of expressing any opinions on firearms, because they haven't fully mastered intricate gun terminology. It cuts both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:39 PM

124. There has been a lot of frustration

and very few people have handled that well.

FWIW I've seen quite a few constructive gun threads over the past few days here. I think the dominant emotion on the anti-AWB side is not "these posters are stupid" but "these posters are responding to dishonestly-marketed legislation exactly like one would expect."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:21 PM

90. What you say is certainly true, but ...

... a serious discussion of exact definitions is critical to the fashioning of a workable piece of legislation -- one that actually manages to accomplish what we intend it to accomplish. I am absolutely in favor of doing whatever we can by way of better gun control laws in order that we may, to the extent possible, prevent another Sandy Hook. But I'm also in favor of getting it right the first time. What I've seen playing out here on DU in recent weeks is that any attempted discussion of the potential weaknesses in proposed definitions of types of weapons to be banned is reflexively greeted by suggestions that the person pointing out those weaknesses must be carrying water for the NRA (I'm not saying you did that here, btw). That is not only intellectually dishonest, it is harmful to the kind of discussion that needs to take place as we try to arrive at a response to Sandy Hook. For I can promise you, if we don't have that discussion up front, and allow legislation to pass that is in any way ambiguous concerning the definition of any weapons to be banned, then that discussion will play out in some future criminal trial of an unscrupulous gun dealer who is accused of violating that ban, as that dealer's defense attorney will seek to exploit every ambiguity of language or ill-conceived or poorly thought definition in the cause of getting his or her client off. I don't think that's really what anybody wants, is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:26 PM

92. When we bring up bayonet lugs and such...

... it's not really because these intricate details are important to understanding guns. It's because the various assault weapons bans rather than doing something sensible like ban guns based on their capabilities of firing a lot of bullets in a short period of time, take the fastest-firing class of guns and go into a million little minute details of how they can legally look.

It's not that this is fundamentally a complex subject and that we all need to understand; it's that our legislative strategy makes this a needlessly complex subject because our political leaders are too timid to simply call for a ban on semi-automatics, and have to come up with a "death by a million cuts" instead, where each individual feature is something that looks military and so confuses the base into thinking we're banning assault rifles, which have been for all practical purposes banned for 80 years already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:36 PM

99. I absolutely agree

I am interesting in having us come up with a response that actually does what we intend it to do. That's why I think the discussion of what is or is not included in any proposed ban is critical. Let's get the language right ahead of time, so that we all know what any piece of proposed legislation will, or will not, accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:52 PM

108. This Is An Online Discussion Site. It Is Not A Senate Mark-up Session.


We are not charged with crafting a piece of legislation, here. Our resident Gun Enthusiasts do in fact continue to use the esoterica of firearms terminology as an intimidating weapon against those who are proposing any further restrictions on gun ownership. Certainly, any ultimately-passed legislation involving firearms use and ownership should be crafted with care, because God knows, it will be tested by the gun militants, time and time again. But for purposes of day-to-day discussions here at DU, there is no reason for anyone to put up with any bullying if "clip" is used, where "magazine" is the technically correct word. All this does is stifle conversations which have the potential of being constructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:00 PM

109. I don't condone pouncing on magazine vs. clip

And if you look back you'll see I haven't done that; I just use correct terms in my own posts.

On the other hand, when we're talking about the AWB, the esoterica are not trivial; it's the bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds that it bans and not the capability of firing a lot of rounds quickly.

We keep coming back to those because that's what an AWB is.

Want to see the minutiae disappear? Call for a ban on semi-automatics with detachable magazines. It's simple, it's what most people mistakenly think the AWB is anyways, and it polls better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:07 PM

118. Suits Me.


A ban on semi-autos with detachable magazines is alright, as far as I'm concerned. There will be an enormous amount of resistance to such a measure, but that's to be expected.

I still believe that due consideration should be given to the type of personality that finds a rifle unsatisfactory without features like bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:17 PM

120. Me too

Banning isn't my preferred idea, but it's well within Congress's power and it polls well, and would probably do some good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:14 PM

82. Just more reason to outright ban 100% of all weapons/bullets in the streets

 

and add more federal security to protect the 99%common person from the 1%NRA member

a gun is a gun is a weapon that mass destroys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:18 PM

87. someone posted this yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=93142

truthers could care less about the slaughter of little children , truly despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:35 PM

97. nuances are used when all other sane arguments are bankrupt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:37 PM

100. Better still ban all guns that look, act, fire like the one used for the massacre

why bother labelling it.

measure the size, weight, length, velocity, power, etc. put a range around it and ban them all.

who gives a crap if they're assault rifles or not. they were used to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #100)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:38 PM

101. It's an interesting idea. Ban that literal form factor?

There's a certain logic to that I like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:45 PM

104. let's get rid of the arguments around nuance

and get straight to the meat of what is trying to be achieved.

- we are not out to ban all guns
- only the ones that are conveniently used for massacres and rarely if ever for self-defense
- aggressively implement the gun laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:46 PM

105. Oh, then you want to ban handguns

That's the majority of mass shootings and nearly all non-mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:40 PM

102. I believe the Connecticut police have not completed their final report


So, if you go by press accounts, many of which are "telephone game" re-tellings, you'll probably find all sorts of contradictory things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:44 PM

103. You must have missed post #51 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #103)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:47 PM

106. Why?

Does post #51 state what "I believe"?

I have never had to read anything anyone else has written, in order to determine what I believe.

Beliefs, like many other things, can be incorrect, including my own. The last time I had looked at this RW claptrap, the final report was not published. Perhaps it may have been, and I need to correct my belief.

But I would be fascinated to understand how it is necessary for me to read something in order to make a statement of present belief, as indicated by the preface "I believe".

I am certain you did not correctly read post #102, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:02 PM

110. I never knew...

...a hair could be split as many times as it is in this thread... to call what was used in Newtown a "rifle" is horribly disingenuous. It conjures up a vision of some sort or bolt or lever action rifle like was used in the old TV show Rifleman and that is just not the case. The weapon used was a Bushmaster semi automatic rifle, caliber .223. A military style assault weapon designed to inflict maximum damage in very short order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deathrind (Reply #110)


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:27 PM

114. That is because it is a report from right after the event when the media was FUBAR

I watched it the other day...Williams makes a date reference in it that clears that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:32 PM

116. It was a blunderbuss, wasn't it?

Those are entirely legal, aren't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:02 PM

117. I suppose that when the time comes

an assault weapon will be defined by having philips head screws. If it has torx head screws it does not qualify as an assault weapon and is therefore legal to kill children with..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:57 PM

137. This meme is the result of very shoddy initial reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:00 PM

139. Appallingly shoddy. Remember the stuff about his mom being a teacher?

This obsessive need to scoop without waiting for verification absolutely feeds conspiracy nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:53 PM

143. My nomination for worst reporting would be for:

Identifying the wrong guy as the gunman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:43 PM

142. They play with words

 

in order to prove their invalid points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:04 PM

160. And thus they make the case for banning ALL guns.

If non-assault rifles could inflict that kind of damage in that short a time frame, then THEY should be banned too.

God, gun humpers are getting dumber by the second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:39 PM

161. They use a news clip from the morning after the shooting

At that time the situation was still muddled. They still thought the guys mom was a teacher at the school, etc, and the news orgs were still speculating. My idiot brother posted that on Facebook a few days ago and my sister and I instantly debunked it.

I asked my brother if he was intellectually self neutered, or just gullible, and he took it down lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Original post)


Response to bigbas175 (Reply #164)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 05:20 PM

165. no that's the BS he ISN'T looking for

xxxx//beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/01/obamas-soviet-style-plan-to-destroy-america-revealed-2447282.html

ot that crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread