Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
is it standard in combat that one shot always takes down a perp or enemy? I say no, that most normal encounters are with weapons that may not take someone out with one shot. It's why gangsters do head shots, it is the only guaranteed one shot death.??is it standard?There were 4 or 5 other guys in my company carrying M14s and all of us were very happy with that heavy motherfucker.
LOLOLWhat bullshit. The teen murderer was not alone. He was with another member of that "group" when Rosenbaum chased him down for some reason.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?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.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?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not 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.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
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?
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.
No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.
We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.
It matters not that they fire quickly. He still had to squeeze the trigger to fire each round. And if he's not capable of handling the weapon properly, he shouldn't handle it at all.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.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.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.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.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.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.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.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.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.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
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
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.
This shit is always political.
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.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.
Fucking moron, ground-to-air missile was the example given, not air-to-air.What's "insane" about it? What's a private citizen going to do with an air-to-air missile, and how could they possibly get the materials to build a nuclear weapon?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.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.
No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, you're on record for disagreeing.Except not, though.LOLOLOLLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And.......... you're wrong again.
No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.
Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??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.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
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,,,,
I believe the people that currently have them shouldnt,,,Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??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.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
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,,,,
LOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
LOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.
www.breitbart.com
still showing off your bigotry, thanks. again, dmofks are the true black haters. you seem to always like to point that out.,Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.
Does that evasive answer mean there are other private citizens you believe can legally own nukes?I believe the people that currently have them shouldnt,,,Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??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.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
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,,,,
LOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
nope,,,Does that evasive answer mean there are other private citizens you believe can legally own nukes?I believe the people that currently have them shouldnt,,,Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??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.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
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,,,,
These guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. 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.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
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.
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.
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.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
