Those evil assault rifles
As the investigation proceeds and security videos are watched, one fact comes to light.
The Czar of Muscovy writing at
The Gormogons has the scoop:
Revealed: Media Lying About Assault Rifle
Well, now that Americans have forgotten about Sandy Hook and are all excited excited excited for the President�s inauguration tomorrow (Obama 2.0? More like Obama 1.1), okay, well, now the story is getting out that Adam Lanza did not use an assault rifle during his attack; in fact, it now appears he didn�t have one at all. Four handguns were used.
This is exactly what the Mandarin predicted, by the way, and what a pain that he didn�t post that but mentioned it to us in person about a month ago. Normally, the press is keen to splash pictures of the weapons all over the place to shock people, and their absolute inability to do so was most revealing to him.
As the Czar watches the video (around the :10 second mark), you can see someone clearing rounds out of a long gun with an action not unlike a 12-gauge semiauto shotgun; we cannot tell the weapon make from this distance, but you can see whatever ammunition it has dropping out in to the trunk�you could easily see shotgun shells from such a distance but not .223 bullets. At 0;11 seconds, you can see a barrel on top of a magazine tube.
Some more:
One cannot possibly accept that the media are ignorant on this issue. While that is a probability on most issue, one month has passed in which media types were given every conceivable explanation for the distance between AR-15s and other rifle platforms, why AKs are not ARs, why a .223 is not a monster bullet, the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and so on.
The smallest amount of fact-checking would have cleared this up in no time.
Instead, you have active suppression of evidence followed by an informed distortion of the record. In fact, the Czar would suggest that Bushmaster (terribly libeled and slandered by the media) turn this over to their legal team for a couple million in brand damages.
Indeed -- the number of significant errors in terminology from so-called "respected" media sources is amazing. If they are wrong about such simple things, what else are they getting wrong when they report on other topics...
Posted by DaveH at January 20, 2013 11:21 AM