Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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


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


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

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

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

Until now.

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



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

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

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

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

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

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

look up the definition of "infringed",,,
it specifically says restrictions,,,

so again,,
show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

It never needed to be changed or repealed. It always allowed for restrictions.

No, it absolutely does not.

The Supreme Court says otherwise. I know this may shock you, but I accept their decisions over yours.

I'll remember you said that..

Good, you do that.

 

[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,,,

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

look up the definition of "infringed",,,
it specifically says restrictions,,,

so again,,
show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

It never needed to be changed or repealed. It always allowed for restrictions.

No, it absolutely does not.

The Supreme Court says otherwise. I know this may shock you, but I accept their decisions over yours.

Until you disagree with one.

 

[Nosmo King]

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

 

[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.

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

have a nice day,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

According to his lawyers, he worked in Kenosha. And there is video of him pointing to police the night of the shooting, saying he works over there, as he pointed in some direction.

 

[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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

he worked in the town and he was asked from a property owner for help,, not to mention he was there earlier in the day helping clean up the graffiti,,,

it wasnt his gun and he didnt grab it but was handed to him by a friend for his protection,,,

anymore stupid comments???

 

[Jitss617]

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

Actually, the age is 18.

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

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

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

Facebook posts
stated on August 27, 2020 in a post:

“At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

If Your Time is short

• Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, Ill., has been arrested on five felony charges related to the shooting of three people at a protest in Kenosha, Wis. Two of the victims died.
• In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.
• Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”

See the sources for this fact-check

The 17-year-old accused of shooting three people during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., faces several charges — including first-degree intentional homicide. But some widely shared Facebook posts say he should be cleared of at least some of them.

In an Aug. 27 post, one Facebook user said it was "perfectly legal" for Kyle Rittenhouse — who was arrested in Antioch, Ill., after fleeing Wisconsin — to brandish an assault-style rifle on the streets of Kenosha.

"Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal," the poster said. "Based on the laws I can find of this area at 17 years old Kyle was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

On Aug. 25, two protesters were killed and one injured after police say someone opened fire on them. The violence occurred on the third night of protests over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer in Kenosha. Blake survived, but he is partially paralyzed from a bullet that severed his spinal cord.

Rittenhouse stands accused of shooting the protesters. Since his lawyer has said that Rittenhouse obtained the assault-style rifle from a friend in Wisconsin (meaning that he didn’t transport it with him from Illinois), we’re going to focus on the second half of the claim — that it was "perfectly legal" for the teenager to carry a firearm in Kenosha.

Is that true? State laws suggest not.


The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
PolitiFact - Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

The age is 16 to carry that rifle, and it’s a open carry state.

since he had no permit - from illinois OR wisconsin - he broke the law right there, jr. the rest was a horrific domino effect that ended up with 2 people killed & a 3rd maimed.

Doesn’t matter

 

[Turtlesoup]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.






To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

Are you really that dense Faun?





They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.

Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........


Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.

So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......

Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.


Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]

A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]

Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]

In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]

Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"

Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.

You're completely fucking insane.

Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.

....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.

"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"

Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.

How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?

me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,

LOL

As if you "think."




Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.

The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.

Such a child-----lashing out irrationally because your little stunt of playing show me the law game didn't work when the law is simple enough to find. Now trying to bully and name call me and others into silence. Honey, there are some things you need to know about me. NOt only do I research quickly and always can back up what I say------but I have no shame either...I don't get embarrassed and I don't get bullied-----I also don't sleep for very long at a time----I got plenty of time to keep posting.

 

[Faun]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.






To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

Are you really that dense Faun?





They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

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

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

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

Just saying....

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

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This shit is always political.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

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

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

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

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

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

You're such a fucking moron.

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

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

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.

Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........


Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.

So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......

Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.


Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]

A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]

Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]

In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]

Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"

Sorry, seems you're too insane to even comprehend that none of that has anything to do with what I've been saying.

You're completely fucking insane.

Yes Faun you lost the argument--Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat so yes Faun, Kyle shooting the Pedo 3 or 4 times was all perfectly legal-------------and trying the childish insults isn't going to save you.

....You wanted proof people/cops are allowed to shoot attackers more than once and I gave you that in an article on why cops are trained to multi shoot criminal attackers. Then you started screaming that you wanted a law showing that civilians had a right to self protect themselves and shoot criminals more than once as well to stop an attack, but when I had other things to do and couldn't respond immediately and tell you to act like an adult and go google for yourself, you again start with these stupid insults thinking this means you won an argument....now that you just got your azz handed to you with the 1921 law for the right to self protection specifically siting that the case that this law was made for was the direct result of the would be victim shooting his attacker 4 TIMES---you go off on these stupid child smears again. All you had to do to not embarrass yourself was google like I told you to do for yourself earlier. It really isn't that hard to google court cases involving regarding the Right to Self Protection.

"Yes it is legally (and the most intelligent thing to do) to shoot an attacker multiple times till he is no longer a threat"

Yes, that could be self defense. All you keep doing is showing you have not a fucking clue what I said.

How many more times are you going to demonstrate you're insane?

me thinks the problem is YOU dont know what you said,,,

LOL

As if you "think."




Moron, what I said is self defense with a firearm is a legal option for some to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, regardless of how many shots that takes. But if the person claiming self defense happened to use excessive force beyond merely stopping the threat by continuing to shoot their victim after they've neutralized the threat, it shifts from being self defense to either murder or attempted murder, depending on the condition of their victim.

The Turtlesoup nut keeps repeating how shooting someone multiple times to stop a threat is self defense, which it is, and which I've said it is. She keeps repeating that nonsense because she truly is batshit insane.

Such a child-----lashing out irrationally because your little stunt of playing show me the law game didn't work when the law is simple enough to find. Now trying to bully and name call me and others into silence. Honey, there are some things you need to know about me. NOt only do I research quickly and always can back up what I say------but I have no shame either...I don't get embarrassed and I don't get bullied-----

LOLOL

Your ignorance is not me lashing out -- it's simply your ignorance.

 

[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.

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

Constitution also says you cant be deprived of your rights without due process of law----------but you know damn well when my kids were under 18, I sent them to their room and gave them no rights when they didn't behave. It's kinda an implied thing that kids don't get full rights which you should know since you behavior is so out of whack...

 

[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.

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

Constitution also says you cant be deprived of your rights without due process of law----------but you know damn well when my kids were under 18, I sent them to room and gave them no rights when they didn't behave. It's kinda an implied thing that kids don't get full rights which you should know since you behavior is so out of whack...

LOLOLOL

Dayum, are you ever insane.

Due process is in regard to the the government enforcing law. You sending your kids to their room has absolutely squat to do with due process.

 

[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,,,

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

What was he fighting for in Kenosha? Really you don't know? He was fighting Tryranny and the destruction of america.....along with protecting people from being attacked the democrat brown shirts.......

Why on earth do you think our citizens should or would allow communists and terrorists in BLM to destroy our country and cities along with robbing, looting, raping and murdering with no one to stand up to them. There is something wrong with you....seriously wrong where you think that we as a society should be back to mobs of criminals attacking businesses, people, and cities. Americans have a long history of fighting for what is right you goofy communist and/or foreigner.

 

[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.

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

Constitution also says you cant be deprived of your rights without due process of law----------but you know damn well when my kids were under 18, I sent them to room and gave them no rights when they didn't behave. It's kinda an implied thing that kids don't get full rights which you should know since you behavior is so out of whack...

LOLOLOL

Dayum, are you ever insane.

Due process is in regard to the the government enforcing law. You sending your kids to their room has absolutely squat to do with due process.

They get their freedom taken away with no rights to freedom or liberty----all without a judge hearing their case---they just got sent to their room because they were minors and I said...much like minors can't "own" a weapon without their parents permission. Parents say no--they don't get one--- Minors do not get full rights--------on their own only via their parents. And yet you claim that you are incapable of understanding this concept....talk about looney tune times.

 

[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.

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.

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

Fucking moron, there are restrictions on kids having guns. There are restrictions felons having guns. There are restrictions on guns in certain locations. There are restrictions on certain types of guns. There are restrictions on some ex-military folks having guns.

None of that would be true if the 2nd Amendment actually stated there can't be any restrictions.

Kids are not adults. As such, they don't posses their full constitutional adults. As for the rest of your post, all you proved is how the government has eroded the 2nd Amendment over the years.

LOLOLOL

Now you're making shit up, fucking moron. Show me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about age ...

Puhleeze, you can't be this stupid. If we can prevent them voting, then what makes you believe we can't prevent them from using firearms?

The Constitution says you have to be 18 to vote. It offers no such restrictions on bearing arms. And you idiotically claimed is says there can't be restrictions.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

Constitution also says you cant be deprived of your rights without due process of law----------but you know damn well when my kids were under 18, I sent them to room and gave them no rights when they didn't behave. It's kinda an implied thing that kids don't get full rights which you should know since you behavior is so out of whack...

LOLOLOL

Dayum, are you ever insane.

Due process is in regard to the the government enforcing law. You sending your kids to their room has absolutely squat to do with due process.

They get their freedom taken away with no rights to freedom or liberty----all without a judge hearing their case---they just got sent to their room because they were minors and I said...much like minors can't "own" a weapon without their parents permission. Parents say no--they don't get one--- Minors do not get full rights--------on their own only via their parents. And yet you claim that you are incapable of understanding this concept....talk about looney tune times.

You sending your kids to their room has nothing to do with due process. Nothing at all.

All you're doing, whether you realize or not, is proving me right that you're batshit insane.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.....

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.....

Just out of curiosity, what source did you obtain the above "story" about slavery from?

 

[Nosmo King]

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

According to his lawyers, he worked in Kenosha. And there is video of him pointing to police the night of the shooting, saying he works over there, as he pointed in some direction.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he worked there. That.'s something that can be easily proved.

A 17 year old with an AR-15 he brought to work. Is that a situation framed by good old common sense?

Would you want cadres of armed teenagers loose on your streets?

 

[Nosmo King]

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

What was he fighting for in Kenosha? Really you don't know? He was fighting Tryranny and the destruction of america.....along with protecting people from being attacked the democrat brown shirts.......

Why on earth do you think our citizens should or would allow communists and terrorists in BLM to destroy our country and cities along with robbing, looting, raping and murdering with no one to stand up to them. There is something wrong with you....seriously wrong where you think that we as a society should be back to mobs of criminals attacking businesses, people, and cities. Americans have a long history of fighting for what is right you goofy communist and/or foreigner.

The phrase is: Law and order.

Where's that pesky "law" part in shooting two people dead and seriously wounding another?

Or do you want a dozen more Dodge Citie, or Kenoshas?

 

[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.....

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.....

Just out of curiosity, what source did you obtain the above "story" about slavery from?

Several different ones...........googling Anthony Johnson is easy enough to google with lots of articles. He actually had an interesting life----when I say his life is an easy google--it is from the time he was forced over and sold into indentured servant status and even his ownership of his slave can easily be found. It wasn't till this year that new information about his earlier life came to light. Originally it was assumed that he was just an uneducated run of the mill african who couldn't speak english and was not christian---new information was released earlier this year likely on Yahoo since I read them daily saying at that point in time, angola had been largely converted and taught english and that Johnson had been a christian that could speak and read english when brought over....which explained many questions that I have always had . LIke how did he learn so much so quickly if he was just an uneducated african at that time....having already learned the language and customs explained the holes.

I research as I do on the web and have a mother who loved loved her very very very old politically incorrect books which contain more real history than we see now. I'm related to the PACE plantation slave owners so the time frame and family tree is always in search for historic documents from this time. (No, I don't owe anyone reparations) I like to learn and Like to form lists in my head about different events that cover decades of picking up tidbits here and there-----------one of the odd things I ran across was some old pamplet articles and law documents from the 1600's to the 1700's on the web which was discussing blacks being enslaved---it was based on RELIGION not color in the very early years flat out but you will rarely see these documents released on the web or to the public anymore. I periodically run across an article but it has been a while since I have seen one. I'll see what I can find over the next few days. My memory isn't as good as it used to be---I don't remember names of specific documents like I used to but sometimes if I think about it for a while it pops back in my head.

 

[Dale Smith]

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

What was he fighting for in Kenosha? Really you don't know? He was fighting Tryranny and the destruction of america.....along with protecting people from being attacked the democrat brown shirts.......

Why on earth do you think our citizens should or would allow communists and terrorists in BLM to destroy our country and cities along with robbing, looting, raping and murdering with no one to stand up to them. There is something wrong with you....seriously wrong where you think that we as a society should be back to mobs of criminals attacking businesses, people, and cities. Americans have a long history of fighting for what is right you goofy communist and/or foreigner.

The phrase is: Law and order.

Where's that pesky "law" part in shooting two people dead and seriously wounding another?

Or do you want a dozen more Dodge Citie, or Kenoshas?

Funny, I don't see any indignant outrage about "Lefty" that had a gun and fired at least one shot before Rittenhouse returned the favor but actually HIT his targets. Gaige Grosskreutz was packing heat and he allegedly said that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse. Three against one, those are the odds that leftards can only try and win with......fuck'em. Their lives don't mean shit to me at all.

 

[Nosmo King]

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

What was he fighting for in Kenosha? Really you don't know? He was fighting Tryranny and the destruction of america.....along with protecting people from being attacked the democrat brown shirts.......

Why on earth do you think our citizens should or would allow communists and terrorists in BLM to destroy our country and cities along with robbing, looting, raping and murdering with no one to stand up to them. There is something wrong with you....seriously wrong where you think that we as a society should be back to mobs of criminals attacking businesses, people, and cities. Americans have a long history of fighting for what is right you goofy communist and/or foreigner.

The phrase is: Law and order.

Where's that pesky "law" part in shooting two people dead and seriously wounding another?

Or do you want a dozen more Dodge Citie, or Kenoshas?

Funny, I don't see any indignant outrage about "Lefty" that had a gun and fired at least one shot before Rittenhouse returned the favor but actually HIT his targets. Gaige Grosskreutz was packing heat and he allegedly said that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse. Three against one, those are the odds that leftards can only try and win with......fuck'em. Their lives don't mean shit to me at all.

I'm not defending gun violence, I'm fully opposed to it. Those who believe there is a place for guns in American politics are the most dangerous among us. No matter what the politics of a gunman, it's the gunman that must be stopped.

What I am wondering is why is Rittenhouse lionized as a patriot when he was a gun toting thug as all gun toting thugs involved in civil unrest. So Trumpians have a peculiar binary view of gun violence? So long as someone on their 'ream' does the shooting it's good (and politics have devolved into the same bonds of loyalty as sports fans see their team)

Or is the last virtue you have left is a disapproval of vigilante and mob justice?

 

[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,,,

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,,,

A lot of things are part of the Constitution. We were still talking about the Constitution. Replying "it," as you did, can only rationally be about the Constitution. I accept this as you confessing you're not rational.

then show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process,,,

Why on Earth would you ask me to show you something I never said??

Again, I chalk this up to you not being a rational person.

you said their were restrictions,,,so ,,

show me where the 2nd amendment to the constitution was changed or repealed by amendment the process???

because by definition restrictions violate the text and context of the 2nd A

He may have been from out of state and if true then he has problems.

What then was he defending? He owned no property in Kenosha.

He grabbed his gun and drove to where he could use it on people.

And they call him a patriot. What manner of patriotism is this?

you obviously are not aware of the facts of the case,,,
please do educate yourself before further comments,,,

Does he live in Illinois? Was it about 20 miles from Kenosha?

I ask again, what was he defending in Kenosha? Why did he go there with his gun?

What was he fighting for in Kenosha? Really you don't know? He was fighting Tryranny and the destruction of america.....along with protecting people from being attacked the democrat brown shirts.......

Why on earth do you think our citizens should or would allow communists and terrorists in BLM to destroy our country and cities along with robbing, looting, raping and murdering with no one to stand up to them. There is something wrong with you....seriously wrong where you think that we as a society should be back to mobs of criminals attacking businesses, people, and cities. Americans have a long history of fighting for what is right you goofy communist and/or foreigner.

The phrase is: Law and order.

Where's that pesky "law" part in shooting two people dead and seriously wounding another?

Or do you want a dozen more Dodge Citie, or Kenoshas?

Funny, I don't see any indignant outrage about "Lefty" that had a gun and fired at least one shot before Rittenhouse returned the favor but actually HIT his targets. Gaige Grosskreutz was packing heat and he allegedly said that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse. Three against one, those are the odds that leftards can only try and win with......fuck'em. Their lives don't mean shit to me at all.

I'm not defending gun violence, I'm fully opposed to it. Those who believe there is a place for guns in American politics are the most dangerous among us. No matter what the politics of a gunman, it's the gunman that must be stopped.

What I am wondering is why is Rittenhouse lionized as a patriot when he was a gun toting thug as all gun toting thugs involved in civil unrest. So Trumpians have a peculiar binary view of gun violence? So long as someone on their 'ream' does the shooting it's good (and politics have devolved into the same bonds of loyalty as sports fans see their team)

Or is the last virtue you have left is a disapproval of vigilante and mob justice?

Look, we're going to have peace and order and we will wait a long time for the people we have tasked with that to provide it..... but if they won't, sooner or later, we will.

Because we ARE going to have it, one way or another.