Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

he left the state of Illinois therefore he deserved to die for it. ask them. They still haven't presented another option than the one the kid chose.

The available option was to use reasonable force.

 

[freyasman]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

the only thing 'right' about you in what side of the aisle you're on.

and yet you still haven't presented an argument that will find the kid guilty. so there is that. And, it is the intended discussion point in this thread. you chose to wander off off topic. Because I was kicking ass in here. So feverishly that an insult was required by you.

it's not for me to decide - but a trial & jury ... i believe i read some insane posters on this here thread say it was even him.

the rest of yer reply is delusional pablum.

it's not for anyone to decide, and here we are. so you enjoy playing stupid then? Is that were you're admitting?

it's not? then why was he arrested & charged with a couple felonies & lesser charges?

wow... the restof yer reply is projectional pablum

Political theater by spineless cowards seeking to appease commies and racists.

 

[playtime]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

the only thing 'right' about you in what side of the aisle you're on.

and yet you still haven't presented an argument that will find the kid guilty. so there is that. And, it is the intended discussion point in this thread. you chose to wander off off topic. Because I was kicking ass in here. So feverishly that an insult was required by you.

it's not for me to decide - but a trial & jury ... i believe i read some insane posters on this here thread say it was even him.

the rest of yer reply is delusional pablum.

You mean someone said it wasn't him? What are you babbling about---no one has claimed that Kyle didn't shoot all of the attackers--------what you are trying to spin is the 4th bullet to the back which the MEDICaL EXAMINER has questions about coming from the same kyle since shots 1,2, and 3 went through the front. I concur with the ME's logic on a ballistics test done given that other shots were also heard and that means a high possibility that the kill shot was another weapon and another shooter-but have not said that the 4 shot absolutely didn't come from kyle as you try to spin. I am smart enough to stick to facts and the ballistic test to state where 4th shot came from.

i said i THINK i read that way at the beginning.
learn to comprehend what is written, ok?

 

[playtime]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line and in violation of a curfew order.

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

Omg, you have been told repeatedly and you still post lies. He did not bring a gun across state lines and I know that you know this you lying propagandist.

it doesn't matter whether he did or didnot bring that gun across state lines - because he doesn't legally have a permit nor can legally have a weapon in his possession due to his age.

if he got that weapon from ' a friend ' then his buddy is also in deep doo doo.
[/QUOTE

My post wasn't so much about the gun being or not being brought acriss state lines but about the idiot lib poster knowingly lying and spreading propaganda.

other than the question about crossing state lines - what else is supposta be a 'lie & propaganda'?

I know you would love to change my point----but lets get right back on it. WTH are the lying dem propagandist continually posting things that they know are lies? Maybe you wanta answer about the lying that your group always does.

i don't have a 'group' but nice projection on yer part too.

 

[elektra]

... these were "mostly peaceful protests" and that they were they to deter the small number of bad actors abusing the situation for the change to commit arson and loot.

So, your characterization is wrong on many levels.

Oh, the two dozen men came with loaded assault rifles thinking they were needed at a mostly peaceful protest?

I guess they were simply dumb, thinking assault rifles would not incite the peaceful protesters?

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used against Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

 

[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?

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.

whatever you say you CONflag waving torch bearer. & that there 'state' can blow yer lily white ass to kingdom come if you even tried.

You say "white" like it is a bad thing.

because you are a racist asshole.

that is just stupid. first of all - i am white; although at one time my ancestors were considered to be greasy & brown... but i digress.

did you not see the word 'cracker' that the torchbearer called himself?

ya... i bet you CONveniently overlooked that part on purpose, didn't you cartoon boy.

i also see you CONveniently disregard the poster's avatar which denotes the epitome of racism.

your double standard is both sickening & hypocritical.

 

[Correll]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

 

[freyasman]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used against Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

 

[Correll]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?

Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.

People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.

I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.

This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.

You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?

Because Rittenhouse was the one forced by the police to wander around in the war zone, alone, for the mob to attack for the crime of preventing them from rioting and looting and burning.


The others were together as a group. Ritterhouse was one guy, and a very young and polite guy. Bullies and barbarians see politeness as weakness.


You know all of this. Why are you playing stupid?

What bullshit. The teen murderer was not alone. He was with another member of that "group" when Rosenbaum chased him down for some reason.

Sadly, you can't seem to formulate a position without lying.

This is the first I heard that claim, and I don't see a second person in the video.

AND, even if true, two people is still a more appealing target to thugs and bullies than the full group.

 

[Turtlesoup]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used against Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

And you have already been told that the number of shots doesn't matter---the semi automatics fire shots quickly and those under attack are flooded with adrenaline making it impossible to stop...on top of this the first, second, third, and even possibly the fourth shot did not stop the PEDO immediately--------even shot he was still moving around.

 

[Correll]

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.

whatever you say you CONflag waving torch bearer. & that there 'state' can blow yer lily white ass to kingdom come if you even tried.

You say "white" like it is a bad thing.

because you are a racist asshole.

that is just stupid. first of all - i am white; although at one time my ancestors were considered to be greasy & brown... but i digress.

did you not see the word 'cracker' that the torchbearer called himself?

ya... i bet you CONveniently overlooked that part on purpose, didn't you cartoon boy.

i also see you CONveniently disregard the poster's avatar which denotes the epitome of racism.

your double standard is both sickening & hypocritical.

YOur being white obviously does not mean you cannot still be anti-white racist.

Your denial based on that is your being retarded.

 

[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?

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.

whatever you say you CONflag waving torch bearer. & that there 'state' can blow yer lily white ass to kingdom come if you even tried.

You say "white" like it is a bad thing.

because you are a racist asshole.

that is just stupid. first of all - i am white; although at one time my ancestors were considered to be greasy & brown... but i digress.

did you not see the word 'cracker' that the torchbearer called himself?

ya... i bet you CONveniently overlooked that part on purpose, didn't you cartoon boy.

i also see you CONveniently disregard the poster's avatar which denotes the epitome of racism.

your double standard is both sickening & hypocritical.

YOur being white obviously does not mean you cannot still be anti-white racist.

Your denial based on that is your being retarded.

your opinion of me will be given the CONsideration it so richly deserves, cracker.

 

[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.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

the tech is on the internet,,,

 

[Correll]

... these were "mostly peaceful protests" and that they were they to deter the small number of bad actors abusing the situation for the change to commit arson and loot.

So, your characterization is wrong on many levels.

Oh, the two dozen men came with loaded assault rifles thinking they were needed at a mostly peaceful protest?

I guess they were simply dumb, thinking assault rifles would not incite the peaceful protesters?

1. Yes. A massive display of force, makes the likely hood that the force is actually used, less.

2. Correct. Because the protests are not mostly peaceful. They are an army of violent thugs, much like the nazi brownshirts.

3. But, their being stupid to believe the shit the media tells them, does not negate their right to self defense.

 

[Correll]

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.

whatever you say you CONflag waving torch bearer. & that there 'state' can blow yer lily white ass to kingdom come if you even tried.

You say "white" like it is a bad thing.

because you are a racist asshole.

that is just stupid. first of all - i am white; although at one time my ancestors were considered to be greasy & brown... but i digress.

did you not see the word 'cracker' that the torchbearer called himself?

ya... i bet you CONveniently overlooked that part on purpose, didn't you cartoon boy.

i also see you CONveniently disregard the poster's avatar which denotes the epitome of racism.

your double standard is both sickening & hypocritical.

YOur being white obviously does not mean you cannot still be anti-white racist.

Your denial based on that is your being retarded.

your opinion of me will be given the CONsideration it so richly deserves, cracker.

So, you argue against my accusation that you are racist, by using a racist slur?

ok. I win again.

 

[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.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

 

[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?

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.

whatever you say you CONflag waving torch bearer. & that there 'state' can blow yer lily white ass to kingdom come if you even tried.

You say "white" like it is a bad thing.

because you are a racist asshole.

that is just stupid. first of all - i am white; although at one time my ancestors were considered to be greasy & brown... but i digress.

did you not see the word 'cracker' that the torchbearer called himself?

ya... i bet you CONveniently overlooked that part on purpose, didn't you cartoon boy.

i also see you CONveniently disregard the poster's avatar which denotes the epitome of racism.

your double standard is both sickening & hypocritical.

YOur being white obviously does not mean you cannot still be anti-white racist.

Your denial based on that is your being retarded.

your opinion of me will be given the CONsideration it so richly deserves, cracker.

So, you argue against my accusation that you are racist, by using a racist slur?

ok. I win again.

you still haven't bought that sarcasm detector, i see.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

the tech is on the internet,,,

You can't buy Plutonoium or enriched uranium on the internet.

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.