Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

How dare he call the cops on a druggy thief and a guy with a history of attacking other people. It is all zimmermans fault for daring to care about his community and try to stop the violent criminals which trayvon absolutely was.

PUll your head out of the sand and get a clue...buy a vowel if you have to.

Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Call the cops and leave it alone. Let them handle it. We don't need pretend cops instigating problems that leave other people dead.

Bull chit--------------he was casing the neighborhood peeking into homes and their fenced areas to break in at a later date. He was snagged with stolen jewelry and a burglary kit.......criminals casing homes to rob do look suspicious. And fyi, he had no money and no job and his dad was a dead beat so he had no other means but to rob to get his drug money. Wanna play some more? Want talk about where he got the guns he was pictured with or the drugs he was also pictured with?

Bullshit.

You have no proof that he was casing the neighborhood.

Yes we do---------he was a criminal and his suspicious behavior of peeking into peoples homes and yards out in the rain is what caught zimmerman (who is part black btw) attention. Again, casing is very noticeable and suspicious. Trayvon was a violent druggy stealing criminal---as such he was suspicious and got snagged.

You keep saying that yet you still don't have proof of it.

Wanna say it some more? That's cool. It still won't be proof.

What do you think druggy thief Trayvon was doing in the rain that day? Zimmerman saw the thief peeking into peoples homes and enclosed areas as per his phone call to the police dispatch before trayvon got himself killed.

Still not proof.

 

[elektra]

yet, for all the rantings, all the opinions, and the facts presented, a teenager who lacked the guidance of adults with common sense, faces charges of murder.

Even is this boy wins, he still loses. He is in jail and will be for a long time. He will either face a trail or accept a plea deal. He would be a fool to go to trail. He will not be able to afford a great lawyer. Maybe he will get lucky and all those that support him, here, will get together and commit your money to his defense fund. But, even with money, that will not guarantee his lawyers will be great.

Right or wrong really don't matter for this kid now, I am sure he sits in jail and wonders why he was so fucking stupid as to take a weapon of war to a riot to enforce peace.

 

[jc456]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

 

[jc456]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

How dare he call the cops on a druggy thief and a guy with a history of attacking other people. It is all zimmermans fault for daring to care about his community and try to stop the violent criminals which trayvon absolutely was.

PUll your head out of the sand and get a clue...buy a vowel if you have to.

Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Call the cops and leave it alone. Let them handle it. We don't need pretend cops instigating problems that leave other people dead.

Bull chit--------------he was casing the neighborhood peeking into homes and their fenced areas to break in at a later date. He was snagged with stolen jewelry and a burglary kit.......criminals casing homes to rob do look suspicious. And fyi, he had no money and no job and his dad was a dead beat so he had no other means but to rob to get his drug money. Wanna play some more? Want talk about where he got the guns he was pictured with or the drugs he was also pictured with?

Bullshit.

You have no proof that he was casing the neighborhood.

Yes we do---------he was a criminal and his suspicious behavior of peeking into peoples homes and yards out in the rain is what caught zimmerman (who is part black btw) attention. Again, casing is very noticeable and suspicious. Trayvon was a violent druggy stealing criminal---as such he was suspicious and got snagged.

You keep saying that yet you still don't have proof of it.

Wanna say it some more? That's cool. It still won't be proof.

What do you think druggy thief Trayvon was doing in the rain that day? Zimmerman saw the thief peeking into peoples homes and enclosed areas as per his phone call to the police dispatch before trayvon got himself killed.

Still not proof.

Jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Proof

 

[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 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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

 

[playtime]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

LOL!!!!

if donny isn't lying about his wealth, he makes more than a prez's salary in interest alone ... so he wouldn't miss it. i do give to charity...

lots of them. & the ones i give to, have never been shut down due to fraud.

oh & i pay my taxes, have never been audited, & am not under investigation for bank & insurance fraud either.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Yes, you are definitely stupid.

Note: I was repeating a statement made-with appropriate citations-by a criminal lawyer licensed in Wisconsin, to someone posting the same bullshit you posted.

Game, set, match. You lose.

 

[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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

the time the constituion was written - the need to spell all that out was moot.

but there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use is for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Jury found Zimmerman not guilty. Proof

Nobody is disputing that. That's not what's being discussed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

For hunting.

That might be the intent...but that intent was not actually codified in the relevant law.

 

[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 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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use if for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

it had nothing to do with thew topic at hand,,,

 

[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.)

And yet, you post and you post, and you ignore this post, where I have called you out. You are a liar, there is no law that allows Illinois' minors to open carry in Wisconsin.

Here is the link to Wisconsin law. Go ahead and cite the law you claim exists. Hell, I did the work for you and am giving you the link. Now you being the self-proclaimed righteous expert must merely give us the statue.

Go ahead, prove you are not a low life liar

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

 

[Jarlaxle]

More weapon grade stupid.

yet, for all the rantings, all the opinions, and the facts presented, a teenager who lacked the guidance of adults with common sense, faces charges of murder.

Even is this boy wins, he still loses. He is in jail and will be for a long time. He will either face a trail(sic) or accept a plea deal. He would be a fool to go to trail(sic).

Actually, it will likely never see a trial, being dismissed by a judge.

[quote[ He will not be able to afford a great lawyer. Maybe he will get lucky and all those that support him, here, will get together and commit your money to his defense fund. But, even with money, that will not guarantee his lawyers will be great.[/quote]

He has lawyers tripping over each other to represent him pro bono. He will have legal help on par with Simpson's "dream team", not that he will need it.

Right or wrong really don't matter for this kid now, I am sure he sits in jail and wonders why he was so fucking stupid as to take a weapon of war to a riot to enforce peace.

Yes, he should have just been quietly murdered.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

yet, for all the rantings, all the opinions, and the facts presented, a teenager who lacked the guidance of adults with common sense, faces charges of murder.

Even is this boy wins, he still loses. He is in jail and will be for a long time. He will either face a trail or accept a plea deal. He would be a fool to go to trail. He will not be able to afford a great lawyer. Maybe he will get lucky and all those that support him, here, will get together and commit your money to his defense fund. But, even with money, that will not guarantee his lawyers will be great.

Right or wrong really don't matter for this kid now, I am sure he sits in jail and wonders why he was so fucking stupid as to take a weapon of war to a riot to enforce peace.

He is not in jail. He has superlative high powered representation in Lin Wood as lead counsel and the entire Fight Back foundation with their attorneys and support staff. Find out the facts before you argue a position.

 

[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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use if for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

it had nothing to do with thew topic at hand,,,

you keep saying i am against the 2nd amendment - which isn't the topic either - but that's not stopping you................

 

[Flash]

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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

the time the constituion was written - the need to spell all that out was moot.

but there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use is for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

We don't give a shit what you need or don't need. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to us. I need high capacity magazines for the security of a free state and if you don't like like it you can kiss my Cracker ass.

 

[elektra]

More weapon grade stupid...

Yes, he should have just been quietly murdered.

Yes, your stupidity is weapon grade, sling shot grade.
He should of spent the evening at home and not put himself in a position that he faces murder charges.

No great lawyer is running to his defense. Link to any article showing the lawyers names who wish to represent this idiot.

And it is the idiot that goes to a riot and gets himself charged with murder.

 

[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 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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use if for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

it had nothing to do with thew topic at hand,,,

you keep saying i am against the 2nd amendment - which isn't the topic either - but that's not stopping you................

based on what you just said you dont support it,,,

why not answer my statement on why youre wrong???

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

 

[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 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.

View attachment 382230

so you admit you dont support the 2nd A,,,
thanks for the clarification,,,

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

the time the constituion was written - the need to spell all that out was moot.

but there you go again - getting personal. rest assured, the guns in my home, are very real. they are useful for hunting & protecting my domicile.

the only one i personally use is for killing tree rats & i am damn good at it. i certainly don't need 10 rounds even when they are jumping from limb to limb, but you go on with yer delusion.

oh - was that personal?

We don't give a shit what you need or don't need. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to us. I need high capacity magazines for the security of a free state and if you don't like like it you can kiss my Cracker ass.

you have crackers in your ass??? LOL

 

[Flash]