Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

Sure ya do, uh-huh.

 

[freyasman]

Where, EXACTLY, does the law state he must be hunting? Cite the statute.

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.

No, but defending yourself from a pack of feral thugs (at least three with serious criminal records) is self-defense!

Sad, a boy takes a loaded assault rifle to a riot and has the intent to use it. Is that self-defense? Putting yourself in a situation where you must kill people to escape? Claiming, you are there to protect people? Is that still self-defense, or is it vigilantism.

The kid is in jail facing two murder charges and one attempted murder charges.

Even if the kid gets off, he is suffering, even if he wins, he loses. I would never hire him for a job, certainly not one in law enforcement. I have to wonder if the kid is all there mentally.

Most kids who get sucked into the police/military mentality aren't. They're usually maladjusted and looking for revenge.

Dblack, you're an idiot who has obviously never served in the military. No, the reason most of the people I knew in the military joined was because they were patriots, because their family had a history of service, or, like me, they wanted to travel and figured that the military was the best way to accomplish that. Over the 20 years I was in the Navy, I've been to 26 different countries and 49 different states, only missing Alaska. And yes, there are screenings that a person has to pass in order to enlist. Dunno about the police, but the military checks their people.

More time I spent in the Army, the more I thought I should've joined the Navy.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

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

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


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

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

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

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

LOLOLOL

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

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

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

thankfully kyle didnt do that and tried to flee the assault,,,

 

[Flash]

[youtube]

 

[freyasman]

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?

Because government is corrupt and in the business of oppressing our rights and liberties and ransoming them back to us at their discretion?

 

[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.

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

 

[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,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,

my god youre dense,,,

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

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

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


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

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

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

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

LOLOLOL

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

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

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

thankfully kyle didnt do that and tried to flee the assault,,,

That remains to be seen.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

thankfully kyle didnt do that and tried to flee the assault,,,

That remains to be seen.

then why do you keep claiming otherwise???

 

[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.

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

You're more retarded than I thought. I was talking about the Constitution being a living document, to which you replied, "it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,," Since I was talking about the Constitution and not the 2nd Amendment, you prove to be a nut who doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and an amendment.

 

[Faun]

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

Sure ya do, uh-huh.

You think I should charge more?

No, I think your psychotherapist should.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

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

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


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

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

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

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

LOLOLOL

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

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

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

thankfully kyle didnt do that and tried to flee the assault,,,

That remains to be seen.

then why do you keep claiming otherwise???

Because I'm giving my opinion of what I expect will happen in court.

 

[Flash]

 

[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,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

You're more retarded than I thought. I was talking about the Constitution being a living document, to which you replied, "it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,," Since I was talking about the Constitution and not the 2nd Amendment, you prove to be a nut who doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and an amendment.

the least you can do is be honest about what I said,,,

this is what I said in #3082

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.

thankfully kyle didnt do that and tried to flee the assault,,,

That remains to be seen.

then why do you keep claiming otherwise???

Because I'm giving my opinion of what I expect will happen in court.

you should add IMO,,,

 

[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.

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

You're more retarded than I thought. I was talking about the Constitution being a living document, to which you replied, "it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,," Since I was talking about the Constitution and not the 2nd Amendment, you prove to be a nut who doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and an amendment.

the least you can do is be honest about what I said,,,

this is what I said in #3082

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

Which is about the Constitution. That's what we were discussing, the Constitution. You said that about the Constitution ^^^

Then I pointed out you're a retard about the Constitution...

Then you responded back saying "it..." -- which can only rationally be about the Constitution since that's what we were talking about.

But now you say you suffered a brain fart and were actually talking about 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,,,

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,,,

LOL

Dayum, you're a fucking retard. Yes, the Constitution has been changed with amendments...

AMENDMENT XI​

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.​

​

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.​

​

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

I never said it hasnt happened,,just the the 2nd A hasnt been,,

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

You're more retarded than I thought. I was talking about the Constitution being a living document, to which you replied, "it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,," Since I was talking about the Constitution and not the 2nd Amendment, you prove to be a nut who doesn't understand the difference between the Constitution and an amendment.

the least you can do is be honest about what I said,,,

this is what I said in #3082

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

Which is about the Constitution. That's what we were discussing, the Constitution. You said that about the Constitution ^^^

Then I pointed out you're a retard about the Constitution...

Then you responded back saying "it..." -- which can only rationally be about the Constitution since that's what we were talking about.

But now you say you suffered a brain fart and were actually talking about the 2nd Amendment.

the 2nd is part of the constitution,,,
so youre bailing out???

have a nice day,,,

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Yes it does say there can't be restrictions. What the fuck do you believe "shall not be infringed" means?

There are no restrictions on what kind of guns you could carry when the Amendment was passed, moron. The Constitution doesn't define the words it uses. The people who wrote it assumed you knew what they meant.

You're arguments are all ludicrous.

 

[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?

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.

[/QUOTE]
And he is right again but Huff and puff will try to say that he lied. It's their way.