Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Turtlesoup]

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?

And oh look---you drank the kool aid and obviously didn't learn history while in school, so you don't know the facts. Let me help you out and teach you a few historic facts that your lib indoctrination supposed schools like to flat out HIDE and lie about.

In Today's history lesson, we are going to be covering some basics about slavery in America. It isn't what you have been lead to believe.

1) Slavery here in the US was not just done by white men babe, there were plenty of black slave owners here. See for starters ANTHONY JOHNSON black american who started slavery of blacks here.
2) After you read 1, you should have then realized then that all blacks weren't slaves here and instead blacks started off just like the whites did. Black slavery really didn't start till after most of the american colonies had been started-----many many black people and family lines were always free people here. But so many people especially among blacks can't grasp this concept. Which brings me to
3) Slavery in America did not start off based on skin color-------------it was based on.........wait for it.........wait....wait........................RELIGION. And most people have no fricking clue about this. NONE...Zero....Zilch......Never ever had an ideal
4) See the way they got people to accept slavery in America (because it didn't start off like this) was that they said it was to be used to save the souls of those who weren't christians. So it really wasn't evil to own slaves because then you could save their souls by teaching them to be christians. So initially, slavery started off here In america taking only people who didn't believe in the christian god----blacks and indians. Exceptions were made for Anthony Johnson because his people in africa had been converted and taught english even before the catholic spaniards kidnapped him and chained him and then traded him for supplies. He in america was made a indentured servant like most everyone else at the time white or black and then released a few years later given some land and basics to start his new life as a freeman----and he was actually a successful businessman who then purchased 3 white christian and 1 black non christian indentured servants...the 3 white men were released after several years but the black one wasn't so he was actually the first black slave (no one cared about the enslaved indians at that time.) The courts backed anthony keeping the non-christian as a slave. Its hard to find records on this now (thanks catholic church for hiding historic facts) but is consistent with documents and court rulings that would come.
5) NOTICE CATHOLICS was mentioned because the catholics didn't represent all christian sects hence why you had so many off shoot christian religions fight so hard against slavery later on...
6) Things changed again though and it changed very very quickly------ what started off as non-christians could be made permanent slaves (verses several years of indentured servants) became if they were from a land that wasn't typically christian (like africa in its entirety or the Indian nations who were naturally not christian either) even if they did eventually convert to christianity, they would remain slaves by law unless freed by their masters.
7)Ahh the 3/5 s rule was meant for slaves....not freemen. Remember not all blacks were slaves-----------in fact many of the free blacks had black slaves who weren't their family btw.....

 

[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?

And oh look---you drank the kool aid and obviously didn't learn history while in school, so you don't know the facts. Let me help you out and teach you a few historic facts that your lib indoctrination supposed schools like to flat out HIDE and lie about.

In Today's history lesson, we are going to be covering some basics about slavery in America. It isn't what you have been lead to believe.

1) Slavery here in the US was not just done by white men babe, there were plenty of black slave owners here. See for starters ANTHONY JOHNSON black american who started slavery of blacks here.
2) After you read 1, you should have then realized then that all blacks weren't slaves here and instead blacks started off just like the whites did. Black slavery really didn't start till after most of the american colonies had been started-----many many black people and family lines were always free people here. But so many people especially among blacks can't grasp this concept. Which brings me to
3) Slavery in America did not start off based on skin color-------------it was based on.........wait for it.........wait....wait........................RELIGION. And most people have no fricking clue about this. NONE...Zero....Zilch......Never ever had an ideal
4) See the way they got people to accept slavery in America (because it didn't start off like this) was that they said it was to be used to save the souls of those who weren't christians. So it really wasn't evil to own slaves because then you could save their souls by teaching them to be christians. So initially, slavery started off here In america taking only people who didn't believe in the christian god----blacks and indians. Exceptions were made for Anthony Johnson because his people in africa had been converted and taught english even before the catholic spaniards kidnapped him and chained him and then traded him for supplies. He in america was made a indentured servant like most everyone else at the time white or black and then released a few years later given some land and basics to start his new life as a freeman----and he was actually a successful businessman who then purchased 3 white christian and 1 black non christian indentured servants...the 3 white men were released after several years but the black one wasn't so he was actually the first black slave (no one cared about the enslaved indians at that time.) The courts backed anthony keeping the non-christian as a slave. Its hard to find records on this now (thanks catholic church for hiding historic facts) but is consistent with documents and court rulings that would come.
5) NOTICE CATHOLICS was mentioned because the catholics didn't represent all christian sects hence why you had so many off shoot christian religions fight so hard against slavery later on...
6) Things changed again though and it changed very very quickly------ what started off as non-christians could be made permanent slaves (verses several years of indentured servants) became if they were from a land that wasn't typically christian (like africa in its entirety or the Indian nations who were naturally not christian either) even if they did eventually convert to christianity, they would remain slaves by law unless freed by their masters.
7)Ahh the 3/5 s rule was meant for slaves....not freemen. Remember not all blacks were slaves-----------in fact many of the free blacks had black slaves who weren't their family btw.....

when you c/p something, it's good manners to cite yer source.

 

[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,,,

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.

so youre saying every law passed is constitutional even those passed by republicans???

 

[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.

so youre saying every law passed is constitutional even those passed by republicans???

good luck - lol, i wish you well in yer endeavor..

 

[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,,,

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.

so youre saying every law passed is constitutional even those passed by republicans???

good luck - lol, i wish you well in yer endeavor..

thanks for the support,,,

sorry you lost the debate though,,now go get your cookies and milk,,,

 

[basquebromance]

For every Jacob Blake, there are millions of Jacob Blake's victims

 

[Turtlesoup]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

LOL!!!!

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

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

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

And you are clueless-----being audited is not a sign of wrong doing. In fact, it very common in businesses especially in ones that don't pay off the right politicians----like the dems Bezos Buffet and others.

uh-huh ... alrighty then - after nearly 4 years of 'auditing' ... why hasn't donny given his taxes up for review, then? nixon did.

donny won't.

but we know why & sooner or later they will be made public; since new york has 'em & deutche bank is cooperating.

Here is a video of the "hero", Kyle Rittenhouse sucker-punching a girl. What a guy, huh? Although it is pretty funny to watch him crawling away from the guys who intervened in Kyle's punching the girl from behind.

No, it doesn't show anything from the riots. But I think it shows plenty about Kyle.

Why are two these foul mouth black guys hiding in a car recording a video and focusing in on minor kyle calling the supposed kyle by his name? And fyi, the video does not show what you or they claim.

They are the schools resident bullies and terrorists who were harassing and attacking kyle so much that a restraining was requested to be put against them

ok............. which has nothing to do with him being in wisconsin.

is it illegal to be in Wisconsin? why?

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

No, I just expect more from people----I despise stupid people and I despise manipulative people and I despise people who absolutely cant think for themselves...I gave faun more than enough info to grow and to understand why shooting a criminal multiple times is necessary----for everyone---cops, military and civilians. I thought it common knowledge and common sense about shooting criminals to kill them is necessary. I hate having to baby people especially when they can get up off their own arses and do their own damn google search as I have alot going on today and shouldn't have to spoon fed an overgrown baby trying to play head games on top of it. The right to kill to protect yourself and others is not a new or complicated concept.

 

[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,,,

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.

so youre saying every law passed is constitutional even those passed by republicans???

good luck - lol, i wish you well in yer endeavor..

thanks for the support,,,

sorry you lost the debate though,,now go get your cookies and milk,,,

remember when i said only in yer delusional mind?


^^^ that ^^^

youre projecting again,,,

i know you are, but what am i?

youre cookies and milk are getting old,,,

so's yer schtick. get some new material.

it still applies,,,

 

[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,,,

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,,,

Dumbfuck, no one said the 2nd Amendment was repealed.

 

[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,,,

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,,,

LOLOL

You're fucked in the head, con. Where do you see the words, "restrictions" or "regs" ...?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

 

[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,,,

LOLOL

You're fucked in the head, con. Where do you see the words, "restrictions" or "regs" ...?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

what do you think the phrase "shall not be infringed" means???

 

[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.

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???

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, It's a piece of parchment with words on on it. It can't change naturally, it needs people to change it.

 

[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???

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, It's a piece of parchment with words on on it. It can't change naturally, it needs people to change it.

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

 

[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,,,

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,,,

LOLOL

You're fucked in the head, con. Where do you see the words, "restrictions" or "regs" ...?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It means they have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say there can't be restrictions. In fact, there have been restrictions. Get convicted of a felony and you can't legally own any firearm. In the 90's there were restriction on some types of guns. There are still restrictions on some types of guns. It also doesn't define "arms." A knife is "arms." You own a knife? Then you're already covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[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,,,

LOLOL

You're fucked in the head, con. Where do you see the words, "restrictions" or "regs" ...?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It means they have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say there can't be restrictions. In fact, there have been restrictions. Get convicted of a felony and you can't legally own any firearm. In the 90's there were restriction on some types of guns. There are still restrictions on some types of guns. It also doesn't define "arms." A knife is "arms." You own a knife? Then you're already covered by the 2nd Amendment.

what do you think "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " MEANS???

It means the government cant restrict any arms,,,

please keep talking cause youre proving me right and you wrong,,,

 

[freyasman]

There were 4 or 5 other guys in my company carrying M14s and all of us were very happy with that heavy motherfucker.

is it standard?

??

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.

Okay, I see what you're asking me..... I was confused there.

No, it's not standard. Most people will require more than one round, even from a rifle, especially if they are already adrenalized and moving when shot; the reason snipers are often "one shot, one kill" is because the targets they hit are almost always standing still when they're hit.
From a handgun, you want as many rounds as you can reasonably carry because it might take quite a few hits to stop someone.

 

[freyasman]

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

still showing off your bigotry, thanks. again, dmofks are the true black haters. you seem to always like to point that out.,

BTW, why is it important to know she was black and gay anyway?

It makes her inherently superior in the eyes of someone like him.

 

[freyasman]

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used 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.

That's your opinion and your opinion is actually worthless.

No more or less worthless than yours.

Actually, I do security consulting and get $100 per hour for my opinion and advice on violence and conflict. I'm sharing with you all here for free.


You're welcome, lol.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

LOL!!!!

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

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

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

And you are clueless-----being audited is not a sign of wrong doing. In fact, it very common in businesses especially in ones that don't pay off the right politicians----like the dems Bezos Buffet and others.

uh-huh ... alrighty then - after nearly 4 years of 'auditing' ... why hasn't donny given his taxes up for review, then? nixon did.

donny won't.

but we know why & sooner or later they will be made public; since new york has 'em & deutche bank is cooperating.

Here is a video of the "hero", Kyle Rittenhouse sucker-punching a girl. What a guy, huh? Although it is pretty funny to watch him crawling away from the guys who intervened in Kyle's punching the girl from behind.

No, it doesn't show anything from the riots. But I think it shows plenty about Kyle.

Why are two these foul mouth black guys hiding in a car recording a video and focusing in on minor kyle calling the supposed kyle by his name? And fyi, the video does not show what you or they claim.

They are the schools resident bullies and terrorists who were harassing and attacking kyle so much that a restraining was requested to be put against them

ok............. which has nothing to do with him being in wisconsin.

is it illegal to be in Wisconsin? why?

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

No, I just expect more from people----I despise stupid people and I despise manipulative people and I despise people who absolutely cant think for themselves...I gave faun more than enough info to grow and to understand why shooting a criminal multiple times is necessary----for everyone---cops, military and civilians. I thought it common knowledge and common sense about shooting criminals to kill them is necessary. I hate having to baby people especially when they can get up off their own arses and do their own damn google search as I have alot going on today and shouldn't have to spoon fed an overgrown baby trying to play head games on top of it. The right to kill to protect yourself and others is not a new or complicated concept.

Really? I was in the Navy for 20 years, and in the mid 90's, I was a member of the Security Force at Newport RI for a couple of years. One thing that the Gunny stressed to members of the Security Force was ammo control. When we went out to the range, the course had several different positions for us to shoot from (standing, kneeling, from a doorway, from a window, etc.), and on each target, we were told to do only 2-3 shots per station. If you ran out of ammo before completing the course, the Gunny had a slice of your ass for not paying attention to how much ammo you were using. We were taught to shoot 1 to 3 shots, reassess the situation, and fire more rounds downrange if required. We were NOT taught to empty the weapon into one target.

 

[freyasman]

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

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

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

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

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


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

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

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


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

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

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

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

LOLOLOL

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

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

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

But the law hasn't said that, just some overzealous prosecutor who threw a bunch of charges against the wall hoping something sticks.

And if you're so concerned with upholding the law, how come you don't care about things like rioting, felony assault, arson, and all the shit these guys were doing when they got shot?

You aren't fooling anyone..... you want this kid to fry because he prevailed, and the professional losers you support did what they always do, and lost.

That's it; that simple.