Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

No AR- 15 used at Sandy Hook

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No AR- 15 used at Sandy Hook

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.-Winston Churchill

  • #2

    kissmyace wrote:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


    It was an AR-15.

    Wrestling With Details of Noah Pozner's Killing

     

     

    The family placed stuffed animals, a blanket and letters to Noah into the casket. Lastly, Veronique put a clear plastic rock with a white angel inside


    TWO TERMS BITCHES! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment


    • #3

      kissmyace wrote:

      http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


      It is my understanding that 2 9 mm's were used and the bushmaster was left in the vehicle. Adam Lanza managed to kill 28 people with the 2 9 mm's. Imagine how much more damage he could have done if he had used the bushmaster. Now you have not only made the case to ban bushmasters, you're also making a case to ban 9 mm's and others like it. Keep up the good work. thumbs

       

      edit:

      Adam did use the bushmaster. He also had lots of ammo left. He killed himself when he heard sirens.  See later post as to source. It would be nice if news sources did get their stories straight.

      Attached Files

      Comment


      • TIMKEYS
        TIMKEYS commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        kissmyace wrote:

        http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


        It is my understanding that 2 9 mm's were used and the bushmaster was left in the vehicle. Adam Lanza managed to kill 28 people with the 2 9 mm's. Imagine how much more damage he could have done if he had used the bushmaster. Now you have not only made the case to ban bushmasters, you're also making a case to ban 9 mm's and others like it. Keep up the good work. thumbs


        NO your are not ,, you are making the case for armed guards and being able to protect yourself. 

        Attached Files

      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        kissmyace wrote:

        http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


        It is my understanding that 2 9 mm's were used and the bushmaster was left in the vehicle. Adam Lanza managed to kill 28 people with the 2 9 mm's. Imagine how much more damage he could have done if he had used the bushmaster. Now you have not only made the case to ban bushmasters, you're also making a case to ban 9 mm's and others like it. Keep up the good work. thumbs


        no.  there has been a false narrative about an ar usedthere.  its disengenuous and makes antis seem shady.

         

        how many times more do you need to hear it?  no law you make will protect against this, short of turning our schools into prisons.

         

        killers will use a rock if they have to.  a law preventing law abiding us citizens their rights wont make you feel safer.

         

         

        why does the liberal agenda involve forcing others to do as they see fit?

        Attached Files

      • testuser
        testuser commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        kissmyace wrote:

        http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


        It is my understanding that 2 9 mm's were used and the bushmaster was left in the vehicle. Adam Lanza managed to kill 28 people with the 2 9 mm's. Imagine how much more damage he could have done if he had used the bushmaster. Now you have not only made the case to ban bushmasters, you're also making a case to ban 9 mm's and others like it. Keep up the good work. thumbs

         

        edit:

        Adam did use the bushmaster. He also had lots of ammo left. He killed himself when he heard sirens.  See later post as to source. It would be nice if news sources did get their stories straight.


        How many were wounded?

        Unless doing the bullet to the temple thing - or the occasional lucky shot, needing quite a few hits to do more than injure a person is pretty normal with most guns.

        Attached Files

    • #4

      kissmyace wrote:

      http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

       

      Do you have a source for that same claim that isn't laughably biased? You might as well have cited WND.  


       

      Originally Posted by Papa Grizzly


      Auntie Em just piddled her knickers.









      Originally Posted by 55gibby


      It's OK that you're a dumbass... but it's not OK that you're boring. If you're going to be stupid, a least be funny









      Originally Posted by Hoddy


      First off, I'm not Hoddy, and secondly as far as groveling is concerned, probably about as much as Johnny66 or Daddysguitar did when they were banned.

      Comment


      • #5
        So was Pete Williams/NBC lying?

        Comment


      • #6
        Moonlighting: seems unlikely that he along with the state and federal officials with whom he spoke could all be mistaken about such a key piece of evidence.

        Comment


        • #7
          Quickie: do you know if NBC and Pete Williams retracted their story?

          Comment


          • Zooey
            Zooey commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Quickie: do you know if NBC and Pete Williams retracted their story?

            On what date did NBC air that video?  December 15? 


        • #8
          It has been established by the CT state police that all of the children and all of the staff were killed by the AR-15. Lana killed himself with one of the pistols.

          Comment


          • willhaven
            willhaven commented
            Editing a comment

            BA.Barcolounger wrote:
            It has been established by the CT state police that all of the children and all of the staff were killed by the AR-15. Lana killed himself with one of the pistols.

            Only idiots will disagree.


        • #9

          kissmyace wrote: 

           

          No AR- 15 used at Sandy Hook

           

          http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/


           

          What's important here is not which guns did the damage, but that the damage was done at all. Arguing over whether Lanza used an AR-15, a Bushmaster, a couple of 9mm pistols or anything else is irrelevant at this point.

          __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
          How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

          Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

          Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

          And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

          Comment


          • #10

            The Sandy Hook school shooting was a giant, elaborate hoax and no one really died; that’s the conclusion Wolfgang Halbig, a former educator, US Customs agent and Florida state trooper, has reached after ten months of investigation and multiple disputes with federal, state and school authorities.

            Man's Got To Know His Limitations........

            Comment


            • Belva
              Belva commented
              Editing a comment
              This Wolfgang Halbig is obviously a coupla McNuggets shy of a Happy Meal

            • quickie1
              quickie1 commented
              Editing a comment

              Belva wrote:
              This Wolfgang Halbig is obviously a coupla McNuggets shy of a Happy Meal

              From the picture of him...he doesn't need any more "meals".


          • #11

            So you guys don't have the slightest interest in what he said?

            Man's Got To Know His Limitations........

            Comment


            • rbstern
              rbstern commented
              Editing a comment

              willhaven wrote:

              LOL @ the fusion of paranoid conspiracy theorists and paranoid gun nuts 

              A dumb and deadly combination. 


              Not to mention the poster who brings nothing but ad hom.


            • thankyou
              thankyou commented
              Editing a comment

              IIRC, from autopsy, the only slug that didn't come from the Bushmaster was the one that went into Adam Lanza's diseased brain.


            • thankyou
              thankyou commented
              Editing a comment

              coyote-1 wrote:

              rbstern wrote:

              a) If you have any allegiance to the idea that the founders intended citizens to bear arms similar to those issued to individual soldiers then, yes, it should be exempted from enhanced controls.

              b) Even the ham-fisted SCOTUS decision in U.S. v. Miller stated that Miller had a right to own a Browning Automatic Rifle similar to those issued to US troops in WWI.

              a) Since that is in fact a distortion of original intent, I find myself less and less disposed to it. The intent was not to ensure a citizen could rise up against the US Govt any time he wanted to, and in fact the Alien and Sedition Act that closely followed (nine years) the ratification of the Constitution tells us the Founders really didn't intend that at all.

              No, the 2nd is a slave suppression statement - included in order to entice Southern states into the Union by explicitly allowing a "free state" to 'secure' itself by force against runaway and rebellious slaves.

               

              b) Why then isn't the NRA seeking to overturn the Gun Control Act? Why isn't it seeking bazookas, mortars, and howitzers for the general population?


              There was another compromise intended to appease the slave states = the Electoral College.

              No irony that these two elements of the Constitution have resulted in great loss of life, here and in places like Iraq.  Owning slaves implies that you have little concern of the value of the lives of others, just the amount you paid for them.


          • #12
            I don't believe they used nuclear weapons either, but I don't think you're allowed to own them anyway.

            Comment


            • guido61
              guido61 commented
              Editing a comment
              Nothing bad has ever happened in this country as a result of a criminal individual or group. Every bad thing is a conspiracy and most committed by our own government.

          • #13
            Because, clearly, the paranoid types are open to intelligent, rational discussion.

            Years of experience lets me know it's best to just point and laugh in some cases.

            TWO TERMS BITCHES! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Comment


            • quickie1
              quickie1 commented
              Editing a comment

              rbstern wrote:

              quickie1 wrote:
              The Constitution [sic] never intended for "the people" to have arms.

               

              Well, they sure chose funny wording then, didn't they?

              quickie1 wrote:
              The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
              Are details like this lost upon you?

              Apparently you failed to see when the original was ratified.

              "The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it."

               

              rat·i·fy
              ˈratəˌfī/
              verb
              past tense: ratified; past participle: ratified
              1.
              sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
               
               
               

              On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

            • rbstern
              rbstern commented
              Editing a comment

              quickie1 wrote:

              rbstern wrote:

              quickie1 wrote:
              The Constitution [sic] never intended for "the people" to have arms.

               

              Well, they sure chose funny wording then, didn't they?

              quickie1 wrote:
              The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
              Are details like this lost upon you?

              Apparently you failed to see when the original was ratified.

              "The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it."

               

              rat·i·fy
              ˈratəˌfī/
              verb
              past tense: ratified; past participle: ratified
              1.
              sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
               
               
               

              On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

              I think you missed my point.


            • quickie1
              quickie1 commented
              Editing a comment

              rbstern wrote:



              I think you missed my point.


              All mass emits gravity.


          • #14

            It doens't matter if one was used at Sandy Hook. What matters is that they spew more rounds than is necessary for anything less than a full frontal assualt. There is no need in society for anything more than single-shot.

            "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4715

            Comment


            • gspointer
              gspointer commented
              Editing a comment

              Minning Around wrote:

              It doens't matter if one was used at Sandy Hook. What matters is that they spew more rounds than is necessary for anything less than a full frontal assualt. There is no need in society for anything more than single-shot.


              Ahh the Bill of Needs.


            • rbstern
              rbstern commented
              Editing a comment

              moonlightin wrote:

              rbstern wrote:

              Minning Around wrote:

              It doens't matter if one was used at Sandy Hook. What matters is that they spew more rounds than is necessary for anything less than a full frontal assualt. There is no need in society for anything more than single-shot.


              Demonstrated to be false on a regular basis.

               


              If that's the case then you need to ask yourself why. Ever hear of: violence begets violence?

              That's one mode of violence.  Another is criminal predation on the weak.  Another is tyranny.

              Imagining that limiting guns will make people non-violent is foolhardy.  Mankind was very violent with blades and manually driven projectiles prior to the widespread adoption of firearms. 

              The good news about guns is that they equalize the weak (who can't wield swords or shoot arrows) with the strong, which eliminates all kinds of abusive behavior from societies.

               


            • Belva
              Belva commented
              Editing a comment

              Minning Around wrote:

              It doens't matter if one was used at Sandy Hook. What matters is that they spew more rounds than is necessary for anything less than a full frontal assualt. There is no need in society for anything more than single-shot.


              You ain't never had to get varmints offa your property. There is a rifle that fits the bill to a tee. It uses the same round as your AR15 'assault' weapons, just doesn't look like one. I'm thinking about getting one as I discovered rabbits going into and out of the bottom of one of my outbuildings. Your 'single shot' claim is a statement made in ignorance



          Working...
          X