We hammered the Associated Press several days ago for no knowing what a semi-automatic firearm was, which was part of their attempt to push the conspiracy theory that the May 17 shooting that claimed 9 lives and saw 18 others injured was an ambush by police officers… despite the fact that 119 firearms attributed to bikers were recovered in various hiding places at the scene.
Recognizing how bad they botched their original report, Associated Press decided to issue a major corrections to the story, while trying to keep the conspiracy theory alive. I blame the chemtrails piped into AP offices by the Illuminati:
In a story June 6 about a shootout involving bikers in Waco, The Associated Press reported erroneously that witnesses said the sound of semi-automatic gunfire dominated the shootout. They said the shootout was dominated by what sounded like short bursts of automatic gunfire. The AP also erroneously reported that a semi-automatic weapon can shoot more bullets in less time than a small-caliber weapon. The story should have said that an automatic weapon can fire multiple rounds more quickly than a semi-automatic weapon.
The AP then reissued what was essentially the same story.
Here’s the thing: the patrol rifles issued to local law enforcement and displayed in multiple photos all appear to be COTS (commercial off the shelf) AR-15 patrol rifles with 16″ barrels. These are almost always semi-automatic rifles.
Selective-fire SWAT “entry” M4s that are NFA items typically range in barrel length from 10.5″ to 14.5″ inches, and none of those seem present from any reporting or photos at Twin Peaks. Likewise, none of the rifles carried by the police carry the distinctive lines of the worn-out M16A1s some law enforcement agencies around the nation were provided by the federal government.
The new claims of automatic weapons fire still doesn’t seem to have factual support other than hearsay from three ear-witnesses, who readily admit that they didn’t see officer shoot, much less see automatic weapons being fired.
They never should have published the original story, and the corrected version still doesn’t provide a shred of evidence to support their contentions.
A full retraction would seem to be warranted, but the Associated Press isn’t likely to admit that inconvenient truth.