Mathewrussell52
Registered
I don't get it?
- Thread starter fallenarch
- Start date
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Well in the times of everything recorded. It’s safe to say he was never the aggressor.
The best witness was the guy pointing a gun at Kyle. He should of never been charged and when he gets off I’m sure all that you support will try to burn more cities down.
You say this as if the kid stopped the ‘child rapist’ in the act. He didn’t, nor did he know the dead guy’s history anymore than you did until you read about it. And no one is siding with him. The kid is on trial for (his actions) that night and the trial is not over. Believing the kid had a right to be there and anything he did was ok is BS. Any sane person would balk at giving a 17 year old a loaded AR to walk the streets of their community.
The bullet is smaller on the 223 and the power is less too. I thought I had some of both but shot all the 223. For target shooting I like the 223 frankly, I am significantly more accurate with that than 556 especially when firing multiple rounds. But yes, the AR will shoot both.
FlatlandBusa
Registered
Please don't talk about things that you know nothing about. They are the same case, same bullet diameter, and often use a very similar bullet weight. The main difference is the throat is slightly longer in a 556.
shot thousands of rounds of each. Same case, lighter bullet, lighter load.
FlatlandBusa
Registered
Wrong, tell that to the 75, 80, 80.5, 85.5 and 90grain rounds that get shot in a 223 here.
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Maybe in Cali it’s odd to see kids with lots of guns.
Rioters had the right to burn the city down?? But he did not have to right to protect his life???
WTF is saying rioters had the right to burn the city down? Which didn’t happen by the way.
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Guess that’s fake news.
Mathewrussell52
Registered
Just like Portland. When are you going to move there......
he had the right to be there, free country and all.
what he did on camera that we’ve seen is arguably easily defendable.
and “ Sane” has different requirements apparently bcuz the military gives guns to 17 yr olds guns everyday to possibly die for this country so if that’s ok, why would any sane person balk at someone open carrying a gun unless theyre from ca, ny, or some other place with gun laws that prevent guns from being seen as “normal”.
Just my .02 cents
17-year-olds in the military are highly supervised, no?
Not to mention months of boot camp and advanced infantry training. And even then, no one is allowed to roam the streets of a military base on their own while armed with a rifle.
People tear down cities all over the world, some are met with governmental violence and others are basically allowed to fizzle out...not sure which one is more effective but when you start sending troops in to quell your own people and someone gets shot or beaten by these soldiers-that never ends well either.
.223 and 5.56 are the same caliber, one is metric the other standard.
The 5.56 the military shoots is a full metal jacket round with a higher muzzle velocity due to a hotter load, the AR platform will shoot both, the 5.56 mil spec round is more accurate because of what I described.
If someone got hold of mil spec 5.56 rounds and shot them out of a non-heavy barrel civilian pattern AR, after a while the barrel would burn out.
.223 match rounds are equivalent but have lighter grain projectile.
I ask, where's the parents in all this? If I saw my 17 yr old kid walking out the door with a slung AR I'd be asking some hard questions and then locking that thing up (the rifle).
This wasn't a uniformed 17yr old going out on patrol in a sanctioned security patrol, this was a vigilante who decided to arm himself and go into an unstable environment where the chances of needing to use deadly force was a real threat.
I'd imagine this will come into play as well during his trial.
If he wasn't there in the first place so armed, his requirement to project deadly force would have been negated....
There are professional rioters who descend on places like this in bus loads looking for any way to make trouble, in many cases the locals stay hunkered down in their homes.
This wasn't a uniformed 17yr old going out on patrol in a sanctioned security patrol, this was a vigilante who decided to arm himself and go into an unstable environment where the chances of needing to use deadly force was a real threat.
I'd imagine this will come into play as well during his trial.
If he wasn't there in the first place so armed, his requirement to project deadly force would have been negated....
There are professional rioters who descend on places like this in bus loads looking for any way to make trouble, in many cases the locals stay hunkered down in their homes.
kim windsor
Registered
I will wait for the jury to decide the verdict,I’m glad I’m not on it this is a no win
because anyway you look at it there will be more thugs in the streets and killings.
because anyway you look at it there will be more thugs in the streets and killings.
Mathewrussell52
Registered
If you watch even clips of trial. It looks like his friend bought the gun for him and it never went home. Parts of the world are just different during hunting season I had multiple guns in my car all the time when i was 16.
You can talk about he shouldn’t of been there. But he did nothing illegal. Only way he gets convicted is if all the jurors convict him is out of fear from all the death threats. DOES anyone’s disagrees if the police did their job and protected the community the citizens wouldn not of had to do their job.
Similar threads
