Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Jarlaxle]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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.

Wisconsin law explicitly permits someone age 16-20 to open-carry a long gun as long as he has a FOID card, which Kyle did. (WI accepts his IL card.)

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

 

[Jarlaxle]

He’s nothing more than a stooge for the vast right wing conspiracy Hillary spoke of.

Just how STUPID do you have to be to squat and squeeze out a jewel like this?

 

[elektra]

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

You leave out key facts in that argument, if as an attorney you present what you state to the jury in a court of law, this poor dim-witted boy will be found guilty of murder.

This was a 17 year old who broke at least two laws, the curfew law as well as the statue on open carry.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded....
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

 

[elektra]

Wisconsin law explicitly permits someone age 16-20 to open-carry a long gun as long as he has a FOID card, which Kyle did. (WI accepts his IL card.)

Can we see that Wisconsin law?

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

<pfffft> you called me a liar. seems that was personal. & if you can't hit yer target & bring it down in 10 shots, then you're lacking something somewhere.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

<pfffft> you called me a liar. seems that was personal. & if you can't hit yer target & bring it down in 10 shots, then you're lacking something somewhere.

so youve completely left the topic in favor of keeping it personal,,,

typical when you cant defend your POV,,,

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wisconsin law explicitly permits someone age 16-20 to open-carry a long gun as long as he has a FOID card, which Kyle did. (WI accepts his IL card.)

Can we see that Wisconsin law?

Sure.

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

<pfffft> you called me a liar. seems that was personal. & if you can't hit yer target & bring it down in 10 shots, then you're lacking something somewhere.

so youve completely left the topic in favor of keeping it personal,,,

typical when you cant defend your POV,,,

no i haven't. the topic was weapons of war are not meant for the GP. ronnie reagan even figured that one out. if you can't bring your target down within 10 rounds, you have no business owning anything that could take high velocity ammo held in multi round mags or drums.

 

[Correll]

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

You leave out key facts in that argument, if as an attorney you present what you state to the jury in a court of law, this poor dim-witted boy will be found guilty of murder.

This was a 17 year old who broke at least two laws, the curfew law as well as the statue on open carry.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded....
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

kind of silly to talk about the curfew that was not being enforced.

Oh, wait, since he was not one of yours, different rules apply?

Well, that is a violation of equal protection under the law.

 

[elektra]

Wisconsin law explicitly permits someone age 16-20 to open-carry a long gun as long as he has a FOID card, which Kyle did. (WI accepts his IL card.)

You are a liar and will not be able to cite any law that allows Illinois minors to open carry in Wisconsin.

You must be pretty stupid to think you can simply make things up and not be called out as a liar.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

<pfffft> you called me a liar. seems that was personal. & if you can't hit yer target & bring it down in 10 shots, then you're lacking something somewhere.

so youve completely left the topic in favor of keeping it personal,,,

typical when you cant defend your POV,,,

no i haven't. the topic was wapons of war are not meant for the GP. ronnie reagan even figured that one out. if you can't bring your target down within 10 rounds, you have no business owning anything that could take high velocity ammo held in multi round mags or drums.

so it takes you 10 rounds to bring down your target,,,

you should practice more,,,

I dont care what reagan said,,the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,unless of course you can prove it wasnt,,,

remember most if not all of the founders said it was and why they put it in the rights of man,,,

 

[Faun]

It's also not self defense to keep shooting someone after they're no longer a threat, which the teen terrorist did.

The poor kid was probably scared shitless and adrenaline took over.

That could be why the DA changed the charge from first degree murder ... to ... first degree reckless homicide.

 

[Faun]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

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.

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.

"That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals."

There is no evidence that is true. No other RWers were chased.

Well, we have the history of your people's behavior over the last couple of months and we have the video, that seems to suggest it.

Oh? What other "armed citizens" taking it upon themselves to protect other peoples' property have been attacked?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

After 129 pages it is clear that the communist democrats are furious that this hero kid lived. Then took out the trash.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

 

[Faun]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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.

Wisconsin law explicitly permits someone age 16-20 to open-carry a long gun as long as he has a FOID card, which Kyle did. (WI accepts his IL card.)

For hunting.

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

i WOULD SAY i LOVE HOW some take it to the extreme in defense of restrictions as a rational defense of your opinions,,

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.

you ever heard of vietnam or Afghanistan???

and sorry based on your comments you are not for the 2nd A,,you are merely a gun person that allows your choices controlled by people far away,,,

and its meant to protect us from tyranny where ever it may come from,,,

lol ...

based on yer comments - you need big powerful weapons of war to go ratatatat & boom boom boom to make up where you lack ...

elsewhere.

in fact I havent fired one of my many guns in over a yr,,,I dont have them for the joy of bang bang


now try to stay on topic and leave the personal stuff at home,,,

<pfffft> you called me a liar. seems that was personal. & if you can't hit yer target & bring it down in 10 shots, then you're lacking something somewhere.

so youve completely left the topic in favor of keeping it personal,,,

typical when you cant defend your POV,,,

no i haven't. the topic was weapons of war are not meant for the GP. ronnie reagan even figured that one out. if you can't bring your target down within 10 rounds, you have no business owning anything that could take high velocity ammo held in multi round mags or drums.

so it takes you 10 rounds to bring down your target,,,

you should practice more,,,

I dont care what reagan said,,the 2nd was specifically for weapons of war,,,unless of course you can prove it wasnt,,,

remember most if not all of the founders said it was and why they put it in the rights of man,,,

weapons of war are designed to take mags & drums containing way more than 10 rounds...

last time a war was declared on US soil was a few centuries ago.

washington also had them thar weapons locked up & not in soldiers quarters...

& a musket is not an AR 15. they had no concept of such a weapon.

when the gov'ment decides to trash the constitution, declare war on its own citizens & enough military decide to turn their weapons on americans, within our borders, then you can say you were right... but like i said - it's all an illusion if you think you would even have a chance.


A well regulated Militia, ( are YOU part of one? )

being necessary to the security of a free State, ( we are still free, but i will concede that is eroding every day )

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ( you have that right ... within legal limits )

shall not be infringed.

 

[XponentialChaos]

On the night he died, this idiot was casing homes in Zimmermans community.

That was a whole lot of bullshit.

Start with this part. You can either prove that or you can't. In this case, you can't.

No idiot...those were the facts of the case based on the evidence and court findings----------(well except for the g/f and fake g/f---that is based on new lawsuit just filed.)

Post the proof from the court findings.