PROOF the Bushmaster WAS in the TRUNK of Lanza's car!!!

reply to post by 00nunya00


Good catch. I know guns. Have been around them all my life. But I can't say with certainty what that rifle was. It was definitely a rifle. And not the lever action or the bolt action you mention in your post. It could very well have been an AR. Perhaps with a custom stock, and set up for a scope mount. though no scope is visible, at least to me. It did seem to lack the typical carry handle on top of the receiver. It was of a substantial caliber also. You can actually see the round eject, so it wasn't a .22 or a shotgun. Although no magazine was visible it still could have been an AR-15...

reply to post by Nevertheless


Supposedly all the victims were shot with a .223. The caliber of an AR-15 wither it be Bushmaster or some other manufacturer. It would be awfully inconvenient if the rifle allegedly used by Lanza was found in his trunk...

Originally posted by Fondue
reply to post by 00nunya00

 

Good catch. I know guns. Have been around them all my life. But I can't say with certainty what that rifle was. It was definitely a rifle. And not the lever action or the bolt action you mention in your post. It could very well have been an AR. Perhaps with a custom stock, and set up for a scope mount. though no scope is visible, at least to me. It did seem to lack the typical carry handle on top of the receiver. It was of a substantial caliber also. You can actually see the round eject, so it wasn't a .22 or a shotgun. Although no magazine was visible it still could have been an AR-15...

How does the fact that seeing a round eject have anything to do with it being a shotgun or not? What was ejected appeared to be pretty large, but honestly none of that video is really proof of anything either way, its just too damn difficult to tell for sure.

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

LOL, there were 8 more pages when I got back here, sorry I missed your little post.

And NO, the gun in the trunk had elements that make it an assault weapon per CT standards, therefore it needed to be registered. If it wasn't you're trying to say Nancy Lanza, stay-at-home mom, was a felonious unregistered assault weapons criminal. Not likely.

If she bought it from a civilian she wouldn’t need to register it unless it was a true assault rifle that means if it was full auto or 3 round burst select in which case she would have needed a special license. People buy guns all the time from private owners like myself and never register them. Your entire argument is based off of the premise that she didn’t have a shotgun registered. Here is a wakeup call, many people do not register weapons that they buy from private owners me included.When you buy from dealers, and stores they are registered on the spot but buying from a private owner I speak from experience that 9 out of 10 times people do not register those weapons.

BTW my response was on page 1 so you must have willfully ignored it. I will let you get back to your fantasy world now since you are not interested in the facts and only wish to push some sort of agenda.


If she was a true prepper she would also be prepared for the eventuality that the government could come for her guns in which case keeping a few unregistered would allow her to hide them without any paper trail leading back. I would be totally surprised if she registered every gun she had it would go against the prepper mentality. As far as I am concerned your entire argument being based off that she would register every gun is absurd and the evidence from the video is pretty clear that it is a shotgun.

FYI the way you have ignored others sensible arguments that basically say the same thing makes you look like a dis info agent. I do not know what your agenda is and I don’t really care but anyone with descent sight an IQ above 90 can plainly see that it is not a bushmaster and will not be fooled by your incessant rhetoric.

I feel no need to bicker with you as far as I am concerned it is settled. Your OP has been disproved for quite a while and I will not feed you anymore.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


There is no Assasult Rifle in the trunk. The only people saying that gun is an assault rifle are people that have no experience with Assault Rifles or Shotguns. Please stop saying they could have planted etc... it is a shotgun, period. Regardless of what 00nunya00 is screaming.

www.nationalreview.com...#

www.latimes.com...

openchannel.nbcnews.com...

All 3 citing a shotgun in the trunk, not a rifle. So please stop saying this is an unreported gun nunya, it is reported to be a shotgun equally as much as a rifle if not more. From there we go off first hand experience to determine what it is, which is a Saiga shotgun.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Thanks for that dustytoad. Hard to imagine some one mistaking that shotshell for a .223 round. Even the .762.54 rounds I shoot in my Mosin Nagant arent anywhere looking like a shot shell. And the 762.54 ia a really big round. But you gun folks know that. That''s for the none gun folks in here. Which are dwindleing in numbers.

www.cnn.com...

There is CNN reporting 3 guns taken into the school: 2 pistols and an assault rifle, while a shotgun was left in the car.

Now please 00nunya00 call up and tell CNN they are wrong. Don't go and say "oh they are incorrectly reporting" either when half of your evidence is based on someone elses reporting as well.

Originally posted by Fondue
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Supposedly all the victims were shot with a .223. The caliber of an AR-15 wither it be Bushmaster or some other manufacturer. It would be awfully inconvenient if the rifle allegedly used by Lanza was found in his trunk...

Yes, so what was the purpose of it being exposed in the media as being found in the trunk of nancy's car? To prove he had other guns? Duplicate guns? Or what? If he had an AR in the trunk, how did it get there or was another gun being implicated? If they switched from him using hand guns to a Bushmaster type gun, but the one they think he used was found in the trunk, then what was the point of it all? The existence of another shooter? Then that blows the theory he was just a lone shooter with a mental history. The minute another shooter is implicated there is a different configuration.
Perhaps there was another shooter, maybe a military guy in black ops who got this mental guy to go in on the deal, got him to get his moms guns, then planted the ar in the trunk of the car for the authorities to find. Maybe the guy wasn't meant to kill himself but did anyway, and couldn't be framed entirely like James Holmes did. Why else would that gun be in the car if it was meant to implicate a shooter? Or was it meant to appear to be an ordinary rifle to implicate that this shooter indeed had plenty of guns? Are they going to try and prove this gun was used as the primary weapon? Then a second shooter would have to appear to make that true, as a dead guy cannot put a gun in a car after the fact.

The only thing this video did was prove that it was NOT an AR15 in the trunk of that car. Looked like an AR style shotgun to me.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
www.cnn.com...

There is CNN reporting 3 guns taken into the school: 2 pistols and an assault rifle, while a shotgun was left in the car.

Now please 00nunya00 call up and tell CNN they are wrong. Don't go and say "oh they are incorrectly reporting" either when half of your evidence is based on someone elses reporting as well.

So was the shotgun in the car just to prove that he had lots of guns and was the likely shooter?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Just FYI, saying "with a Bushmaster type gun" is like saying "with a Ford type car", or "Sony type DVD player" or "Pepsi type softdrink" . Bushmaster is simply the manufacturer of the gun, the gun they manufacture is basically identical to the one that Colt/Umarex, DPMS, Rock River Arms, Stag Arms, Smith & Wesson makes.

Being a Bushmaster does not make a gun more deadly, scary, intimidating, or potent then any other Carbine rifle.

If you did happen to know this already, sorry. It is quite apparent that most people have no idea what it is they are talkign about.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't understand the question. There was a shotgun in the trunk for what ever reason, it was left there, planted there, I don't know. This doesn't mean anything as far as conspiracy goes, it just means he brought another fire arm to the party and decided for what ever reason he didn't need it or more likely just couldn't carry all of them.

I don't think it is conspiratorial, except for the fact that the GD media continues to report incorrect information.

Whoops! Now we're back to two rifles, no shotgun:

www.ctpost.com...
dated 12-20-12
He was clad in body armor, black clothing and wielding a Bushmaster and Sig Sauer rifles, both equivalents of a military M-16. He was also armed with a 9mm Glock...

Seems like a lot of questions would be cleared up if they'd just release the video footage. How can they go from a Sig handgun to a Sig rifle. Quite a bit of differences between the two.

reply to post by starviego


All I get off that link is pictures.

Did you watch the video? I don't care what anyone reports, I and many others have watched the video 10's of times if not more and conclude it is a Saiga shotgun. Just because someone at a news desk have no idea what they are looking at doesn't make all of us wrong.

reply to post by danneu89


They have released the video footage of the gun in question, go back to the OP to watch it for yourself in 1080p and Full screen and decide for yourself. Don't wait for a news outlet to tell you what it is, you don't need them you can see for yourself and make up your own mind. They are all idiots anyway.

**Danneu89 I realized after posting this that you were talkign about video of the rest of the incident. Sorry about that, didn't mean to jump on you.

This "rifle" appears to have one of these on the stock, a pistol grip/stock that is seen on many shotguns. Is it a common thing to keep rounds or anything else on the stock of a rifle?



I also don't see the protruding part of the rifle in front of the trigger guard that the magazine would fit into.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


That is called a Mag well, or Magazine well. In an AR it is very pronounced and comes down about halfway the distance of the grip. You are correct in saying it is definitely lacking a magwell that deep.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by danneu89

 

They have released the video footage of the gun in question, go back to the OP to watch it for yourself in 1080p and Full screen and decide for yourself. Don't wait for a news outlet to tell you what it is, you don't need them you can see for yourself and make up your own mind. They are all idiots anyway.

**Danneu89 I realized after posting this that you were talkign about video of the rest of the incident. Sorry about that, didn't mean to jump on you.

edit on 12/20/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)

Hey, no problem at all. Yah, I watched that video in 1080P and have a lot of experience with many types of firearms. It's hard to say exactly what type of gun that is, but it is most definitely not a Bushmaster or any other brand of AR15.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Just FYI, saying "with a Bushmaster type gun" is like saying "with a Ford type car", or "Sony type DVD player" or "Pepsi type softdrink" . Bushmaster is simply the manufacturer of the gun, the gun they manufacture is basically identical to the one that Colt/Umarex, DPMS, Rock River Arms, Stag Arms, Smith & Wesson makes.

Being a Bushmaster does not make a gun more deadly, scary, intimidating, or potent then any other Carbine rifle.

If you did happen to know this already, sorry. It is quite apparent that most people have no idea what it is they are talkign about.

I know Bushmaster is the manufacturer. I even took the trouble to look it up.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...

So ok, people are still wondering whether it was a Bushmaster, a similar type of weapon, or just a regular rifle. Hence my use of the term "Bushmaster type", and the media just reported it as a "long gun". .

As for knowing guns, I don't claim to be an authority on them, but my Dad took me to the range and I have practiced with Smith and Wesson and Beretta.
I prefer the Beretta. But those were both typical handguns.
Also people have posted here that it is not particularly deadly but that didn't stop the Clinton admin from banning assault weapons in general.

Here is a link to someone claiming to own a Clinton era banned Bushmaster
www.bushmaster.com...

So again, are the authorities going to try to claim this was the gun? Or try to claim he had more than one? People here are trying to decide if the gun pulled from the truck was a regular rifle or an assault type like Bushmaster they claim the .223 caliber was used on the children. It cannot be the same one unless there was another shooter, or it has to be planted hoping people are too dumb to figure out if it was the gun how did it get in the trunk, or prove if he had one it must be him. Either way, they think it was a Bushmaster in addition to the hand guns. They do indeed need an assault weapon to be implicated if they want to pursue a ban on these weapons. So either way, if they pull a "long gun" out of the trunk(which could have been Nancy's registered rifle" or it could have been an illegally obtained assault weapon that looks a lot like a regular rifle), it would have to be proven that Nancy obtained the gun illegally, or they plan to simply prove there were more guns in the trunk to prove it was Adam.

Not all mental people go around shooting either. But this happened to be a mom and son who knew how to shoot, so it would be easy to frame him for the deed and her for having guns in the house.
So if they found handguns and not the Bushmaster in the classroom, but one was found in the trunk and the shooter is dead, what exactly does that prove?