Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

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

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

Dumbfuck, if the Constitution wasn't a living document, there would be no amendments.

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

Dumbfuck, if the Constitution wasn't a living document, there would be no amendments.

living means it changes naturally through time,,,the constitution requires intentional direct action through many small actions to change it,,,

anything else stupid you want to say???

 

[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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

 

[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’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.

show the links.

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

 

[lantern2814]

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 agains

t 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.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Wrong as always you little yellow faggot coward Asswipe. Your own quote destroys your lying idiocy. May use force as he reasonably believes necessary. Since your precious pedo was still tying to get to him, fully justified. Bitch slapped 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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[lantern2814]

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’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.

show the links.

Stop asking for pictures of our links you uneducated drunk pervert. Those links have been put up several times. Your ignorance is astounding. Try learning something before showing your ignorance.

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

"living document" - leftwingers get to ignore it whenever they find what it says inconvenient to their agenda.

 

[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’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.

show the links.

Stop asking for pictures of our links you uneducated drunk pervert. Those links have been put up several times. Your ignorance is astounding. Try learning something before showing your ignorance.

in other words - you got nuthin'.

 

[lantern2814]

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’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.

show the links.

Stop asking for pictures of our links you uneducated drunk pervert. Those links have been put up several times. Your ignorance is astounding. Try learning something before showing your ignorance.

in other words - you got nuthin'.

In other words...you’re a lazy drunk who doesn’t want to see the truth. Where’s your link proving your murder assertions you racist? Fuck off.

 

[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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

only in yer delusional mind.... & we go full circle.

i never said otherwise - of course you have the right to own firearms ... as do i. & ' i ' do. we have several. you tried saying i am a liar... that i don't believe in the 2nd amendment - which was bullshit. what i said is that gun ownership is not unrestricted - nor should it be.

hence the regs.

as shown in 2 very credible links - not to mention by common knowledge or you would have a fully automatic tommy gun under yer bed to get the bad guys... but you don't.

'cause you can't.

game over.

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

only in yer delusional mind.... & we go full circle.

i never said otherwise - of course you have the right to own firearms ... as do i. & ' i ' do. we have several. you tried saying i am a liar... that i don't believe in the 2nd amendment - which was bullshit. what i said is that gun ownership is not unrestricted - nor should it be.

hence the regs.

as shown in 2 very credible links - not to mention by common knowledge or you would have a fully automatic tommy gun under yer bed to get the bad guys... but you don't.

'cause you can't.

game over.

tell me how this allows for regs,,,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

if fact its clearly says no regs/infringements,,,
it was copied from your links,,,

 

[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’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.

show the links.

Stop asking for pictures of our links you uneducated drunk pervert. Those links have been put up several times. Your ignorance is astounding. Try learning something before showing your ignorance.

in other words - you got nuthin'.

In other words...you’re a lazy drunk who doesn’t want to see the truth. Where’s your link proving your murder assertions you racist? Fuck off.

^^^

 

[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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

only in yer delusional mind.... & we go full circle.

i never said otherwise - of course you have the right to own firearms ... as do i. & ' i ' do. we have several. you tried saying i am a liar... that i don't believe in the 2nd amendment - which was bullshit. what i said is that gun ownership is not unrestricted - nor should it be.

hence the regs.

as shown in 2 very credible links - not to mention by common knowledge or you would have a fully automatic tommy gun under yer bed to get the bad guys... but you don't.

'cause you can't.

game over.

tell me how this allows for regs,,,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

if fact its clearly says no regs/infringements,,,
it was copied from your links,,,

answer why you can't legally own a sawed off shot gun? or a fully automatic weapon?

 

[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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

only in yer delusional mind.... & we go full circle.

i never said otherwise - of course you have the right to own firearms ... as do i. & ' i ' do. we have several. you tried saying i am a liar... that i don't believe in the 2nd amendment - which was bullshit. what i said is that gun ownership is not unrestricted - nor should it be.

hence the regs.

as shown in 2 very credible links - not to mention by common knowledge or you would have a fully automatic tommy gun under yer bed to get the bad guys... but you don't.

'cause you can't.

game over.

tell me how this allows for regs,,,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

if fact its clearly says no regs/infringements,,,
it was copied from your links,,,

answer why you can't legally own a sawed off shot gun? or a fully automatic weapon?

youre dodging again,,,

that law violates the 2nd and we are trying to correct that problem,,,

 

[jc456]

He went to Kenosha. Is that not allowed by you?

He broke the curfew, is that allowed? He left his mom's apartment, stopped in Wisconsin to get an assault rifle, then purposely joined a riot.

17 year old boys have less rights than an 18 year old. But guess what, he gets to act like an adult and get charged with murder like an adult. Under my supervision and guidance, the boy never ever would of went to the riot. From what you say, from what you post, you have no problem with a boy putting himself in a situation where he now faces murder charges.

It really dont matter if you are right or wrong, it is obvious now, that nobody should follow your belief that it is perfectly okay to enter a riot with an assault rifle. If one does what you believe he will find himself in Jail for murder.

Then everyone there did, right? So explain how that changes anything?

 

[jc456]

The Moon Bats think we should all succumb to Left Wing hate, destruction and oppression.

That is how the filthy Left have gained power in other countries. By the dumbasses letting them get away with it.

Evil exists because good men do nothing

 

[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.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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 answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

the very word 'regulated' is in the 2nd amendment. & it doesn't matter what you say - cause they ARE regulated ... they are called LAWS. there are LAWS regulating guns & who can own them.

are you saying that is not true? lol ... i don't believe i said one HAD to be in a militia ... if i did - then that was shirley a mistake on my part.

under what context is that word used???

I'm waiting,,,

regulated?

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms

www.law.cornell.edu

so you admit it has nothing to do with the ownership of arms,,,
thanks for admitting youre wrong,,,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

only in yer delusional mind.... & we go full circle.

i never said otherwise - of course you have the right to own firearms ... as do i. & ' i ' do. we have several. you tried saying i am a liar... that i don't believe in the 2nd amendment - which was bullshit. what i said is that gun ownership is not unrestricted - nor should it be.

hence the regs.

as shown in 2 very credible links - not to mention by common knowledge or you would have a fully automatic tommy gun under yer bed to get the bad guys... but you don't.

'cause you can't.

game over.

tell me how this allows for regs,,,

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

if fact its clearly says no regs/infringements,,,
it was copied from your links,,,

answer why you can't legally own a sawed off shot gun? or a fully automatic weapon?

youre dodging again,,,

that law violates the 2nd and we are trying to correct that problem,,,

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................... that's no dodge. it was clearly aimed at the laws on the books REGULATING guns & who can own them.

good luck with the rest of yer silly argument & trying to change it.