Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...
He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.
I expect him to be in violation of this law.
Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.
Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.
I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.
Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.
I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.
But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.
You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?
Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?
It's not an either/or.
The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.
I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.
There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.
Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?
How does that distinction make a difference?
He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.
Your entitled to your opinions as well.
I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.
Actuall
I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.
I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.
He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.
its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??
Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...
He says he did and he was right there.
watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,
I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.
I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.
You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.
Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.
Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.
Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.
Cite the exception. Take note, I am quoting the law as written, not some article or opinion. I am posting fact. So argue all you wish, with the facts.And yet there is an exception for long rifles that may apply, you dumb ass....
The fact that you replied is evidence of such.Gee wowee willickers...
I guess if we were in grade school I might actually worry about a childish rant like that.
At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...
He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.
I expect him to be in violation of this law.
Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.
Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.
I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.
Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.
I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.
But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.
You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?
Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?
It's not an either/or.
The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.
I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.
There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.
Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?
How does that distinction make a difference?
He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.
Your entitled to your opinions as well.
I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.
Actuall
I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.
I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.
He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.
its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??
Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...
He says he did and he was right there.
watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,
I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.
I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.
You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.
Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.
Regarding your deceptively twisted meme: It was a bunch of panicking liberals who went apeshit buying stuff as a result of democrat fear mongers spreading pandemonium in the media about the virus which has nearly "evaporated" just like the president said it would.
Of course it is. Semantics?And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...
He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.
I expect him to be in violation of this law.
Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.
Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.
I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.
Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.
I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.
But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.
You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?
Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?
It's not an either/or.
The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.
I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.
There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.
Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?
How does that distinction make a difference?
He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.
Your entitled to your opinions as well.
I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.
I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.
I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.
He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.
its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??
Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...
He says he did and he was right there.
watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,
I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.
I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.
You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.
Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.
The pedo was shot 4 times 3 from the front and one from the back----kyle was never in back of the pedo....ergo the medical examiner has some questions and is awaiting ballistic test results.
Not true. Rosenbaum was facing the little terrorist when he was first shot. But he ended up on his back. That means his body had to spin as he fell; otherwise, he eould have landed face down. One of the shots apparently hit him in the back as he spun to the ground.
And you have nothing but your imagination on that one....The hispanic teenager shot the guy from the front...we still don't know if all of the bullets are the same....
It's also not self defense to keep shooting someone after they're no longer a threat, which the teen terrorist did.It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...
He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.
I expect him to be in violation of this law.
Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.
Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.
I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.
Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.
I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.
But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.
You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?
Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?
It's not an either/or.
The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.
I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.
There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.
Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?
How does that distinction make a difference?
He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.
Your entitled to your opinions as well.
I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.
Actuall
I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.
I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.
He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.
its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??
Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...
He says he did and he was right there.
watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,
I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.
I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.
You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.
Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.
Regarding your deceptively twisted meme: It was a bunch of panicking liberals who went apeshit buying stuff as a result of democrat fear mongers spreading pandemonium in the media about the virus which has nearly "evaporated" just like the president said it would.
The poor kid was probably scared shitless and adrenaline took over.It's also not self defense to keep shooting someone after they're no longer a threat, which the teen terrorist did.
who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
"That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals."Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.
The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon.
It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals.
That you support that, is you siding with violent criminals.
There is no evidence that is true. No other RWers were chased.
i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.
Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.
i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
sadly I cant,,,truthfully its a pathetic defense,,,
we are talking about standard personal arms not nukes or missiles,,,
now explain to me why we should let the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us from should be allowed to dictate what we can own???
Certainly he was scared shitless, he was also witless, to leave his home in Illinois, go to a friend and Wisconsin, obtain a weapon, and then put himself in the middle or a riot.The poor kid was probably scared shitless and adrenaline took over.
you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
sadly I cant,,,truthfully its a pathetic defense,,,
we are talking about standard personal arms not nukes or missiles,,,
now explain to me why we should let the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us from should be allowed to dictate what we can own???
1st of all - i am not against the 2nd amendment & have several firearms in my home.
if you really wanna get technical about that there 2nd amendment - which was meant to protect society from its own gov'ment, should they turn tyrannical ... is a no contest situation if they really wanted to bring the hammer down.
washington has quite the regs when it came to guns & ammo.
