AR-15 Rifle or the so-called "Assault Weapon" was not used in Newtown

MSNBC ^ | Dec 15, 2012 erroneous video report

[Mad Dawgg]

"Oh, that’s right, you were an eyewitness. You have a spotless track record for accuracy and are above question."

Please show where I claimed such. Let me save you the time. I didn't.

What I have said is true. All three sources are notoriously unreliable yet you claim your argument is valid because you cite these sources. Logic tells us that you have no sound argument because all you have is what the Gub'ment and the MSM have claimed to be fact. These are the same people who claimed the Ambassador in Benghazi died as the result of a protest against a youtube video that got a little rowdy.

And that my friend is cold hard fact!

[Uncle Chip]

These are the same people who claimed the Ambassador in Benghazi died as the result of a protest against a youtube video that got a little rowdy.

So then does that mean that the consulate in Benghazzi didn't burn down, and that the ambassador is still alive, and none of it ever happened???

[deport]

I’m not trying to get into this discussion per se but isn’t the 5.56 NATO basically interchangeable with the .223 Remington?

If so then there could have been only one or both at the site depending upon what Lanza’s mother had purchased.

[Mad Dawgg]

"So then does that mean that the consulate in Benghazzi didn't burn down, and that the ambassador is still alive, and none of it ever happened???"

See, the point is I can't tell you with any certainty. Why? Because we know the Gub'ment and the MSM lies!

So when you claim something is true because you saw it on NBC OR a Gub'ment official issued a report then you are in the exact same boat. You don't know its truth BECAUSE the people you get your info from are notorious liars!

You keep taking people to task because they cite evidence that a gun was reported found in a trunk of a car because it was reported on TV News. You in turn cite evidence to the contrary and state your view is right because your source is from...

wait for it...

wait for it...

the TV News.

Bottom line neither of you have any real evidence of the truth. Why? because no one is this scenario can be trusted at this point.

Same for Benghazi. The reporting on it is ALL POLITICAL. Its not reporting of the facts its a move to further and agenda on both sides!

[Uncle Chip]

Well atleast you're consistent.

But then why are you so upset at the MSM for claiming that the Ambassador in Benghazi died at all???

What proof is there other than the MSM that there ever was an ambassador over there or even a consulate??? or even a Libya??? ever been there???

So kick back and relax. There was no ambassador, no consulate, no Libya because you only have the MSM's word for those things -- and the MSM can't be trusted.

[Mad Dawgg]

"But then why are you so upset at the MSM for claiming that the Ambassador in Benghazi died at all???"

Who said I was upset?

I just pointed out your "proof" is anything but. Repeat after me "the Gub'ment and the MSM lies."

Citing them as sources is an exercise in futility.

[Boogieman]

“saw 5.56 casings all over the place - which means he also had to see the ammo that hadn’t been shot”

I wouldn’t draw that conclusion. Two people could see the same casings laying around, and one could describe them as .223s and another as 5.56s. For the casual observer, it would probably just depend on which one they are more familiar with. It’s kind of like how an American might say someone was 6 feet tall, while a European would say the same person was 2 meters tall.

[Uncle Chip]

Citing them as sources is an exercise in futility.

That's why most try to bypass them and go right to the source -- the police and eye-witnesses themselves.

[Mad Dawgg]

"That's why most try to bypass them and go right to the source -- the police and eye-witnesses themselves."

How does one "bypass" the Gub'ment by talking to the police?

(Here is a hint. You can't. They are part of the "Gub'ment")

[Uncle Chip]

and the eyewitnesses — who are they???

[RummyChick]

5.56 NATO is interchangeable with a .223 in the Bushmaster because Bushmaster says their barrels have always been made to take a 5.56. I posted the link to an Ammo manufacturer who said that just because a gun is stamped 5.56 doesn’t mean it has the right barrel. Don’t use a 5.56 in a .223 barrel etc etc etc. But I found a link where Bushmaster says it is okay with their gun.

I saw one poster on a gun site say his wasn’t made to take a 5.56 but it was a defective one.

The only reason this has come up is because someone claims that an EMS worker that was inside the school WHO KNOWS GUNS says the place was littered with 5.56 casings.

But then the poster seems to start backtracking and saying that .223 is like 5.56 etc etc etc and then has gone AWOL on the discussion - as if he found out that maybe there weren’t 5.56 casings there but .223.

[Mad Dawgg]

"and the eyewitnesses — who are they???"

You mean the ones that are reported to have been asked by the Gub'ment not to talk?

Good question.

[RummyChick]

btw, bullets have stampings on them.

http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm

For a little bullet, the 5.56 bullet produces quite dramatic wounds. While the traditional 30-06 caliber bullet of the M1 Garand and 7.62 bullet of the M14 rifle would immediately knock a man down, the 5.56 bullet instead enters the body, quickly turns sideways after passing through only 4" of flesh, then breaks in two major pieces, as well as many smaller fragments. During the Vietnam War, soldiers reported that shooting an enemy soldier with the M16 did not kill as quickly as the old 30 caliber weapons. Instead soldiers would follow a massive trail a blood a few feet away from where the enemy soldier had been hit to find him dead from massive blood loss. This light-weight cartridge permits soldiers to carry more ammo, but is not as effective at long distances as heavier cartridges and does not penetrate steel as well. The low recoil permits quick follow-up shots and minimal muzzle climb during automatic fire.

[Uncle Chip]

No — I mean the ones that already have talked.

[LucyT]

.

.

Of possible interest.

Iroqouis Gas Line Through Newtown, CT

http://sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/iroqouis-gas-line-through-newtown-ct/

.

[Mad Dawgg]

"No — I mean the ones that already have talked."

Where did you see this?

[Uncle Chip]

Here — you might find this interesting:

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/15/223-remington-vs-556-nato-what-you-dont-know-could-hurt-you/

[RummyChick]

I already posted that
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981821/posts?page=130#130

[Uncle Chip]

Multiple places

And they are neither gub’mnt or msm.

[Jet Jaguar]

Interesting post 95.

icwhatudo, take a look at the link.

I remember the work you did in 2009 regarding taxand property records.

Of possible interest.