Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[bripat9643]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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


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


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

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

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

Until now.

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



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

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

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

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

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

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

It has already been proved, you fucking dumbass, and he didn't bring the gun to work.

You morons keep repeating the fake media narrative which has already been dis-proven a dozen times over.

The owner of the car lot certain thought it was a good idea to have armed people defending his business. Otherwise it would be a pike of smoking ashes today.

 

[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.

I know the story of Anthony Johnson. Which is why I asked what your source was.

Some here are under the false impression that he was the first slave owner in Amerca.

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.

I know the story of Anthony Johnson. Which is why I asked what your source was.

Some here are under the false impression that he was the first slave owner in Amerca.

He was the first official slave owner in america.........

But of course, Indians were being enslaved before Johnson and are never talked about now as slaves so no court hearings or precedents about them being enslaved. Hell, there are many stories of indians being kidnapped by ship captains but then again there are so many stories of ship captains kidnapping whites and forcing them to work as well. It's all about the hype isn't it-----blacks and libs broadcast that they were abused so everyone associates slavery just with blacks, just like the Jews were better at hyping Hitler killing them so many think just Jews were targeted by Hitler---not realizing that Hitler killed between 18 and 25 million people with only 6 million being Jewish. Johnson's abuse of Castor is the first court case setting a precedent for keeping an indentured for life instead of indentured servant for years (which also was often a life sentence because so many died from being worked to death) making him the first official enslaved person in the US and Johnson the first official slave owner in the US.

And yes, especially among sea crews and others from other countries they would bring over their slaves which I assume everyone just kinda ignored since generally speaking slaves were treated better---far better than white indentured servants which were most people coming over were. Remember, by law an indentured servant who survived long enough to be set free was to be given land and provisions--------slaves not being set free weren't so there was motive to work the indentures to death which btw is evidence by old grave sites of the two groups.

 

[dannyboys]

 

[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.

I know the story of Anthony Johnson. Which is why I asked what your source was.

Some here are under the false impression that he was the first slave owner in Amerca.

He was the first official slave owner in America---

Of course INdians were enslaved before them, of course indentured servants were slaves, Of course people who owned slaves from around the world brought their slaves with them when they traveled, of course sea captains kidnapped indians, blacks, and whites and forced them work as well but Johnson going to court to enslave Castor was the official case where the US law (judge ruling from the bench) made someone a slave for life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

They better get the facts straight. Or the real militias will emerge.

What real militia? What facts are not straight?

 

[jc456]

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.

So the ends justify the means? Even if that means mob and vigilante justice?

Can't you hear rioters saying the same thing? We will get the change we're looking for one way or another. Even at the barrel of a gun?

If they give us no other choice and the law we hired won't, then what do you THINK we're going to do?


You ever been in a war?

Brace yourself, it's going to suck.

and most likely people will die.

 

[Faun]

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.

Uh, Cocksucker Dale, Grosskreutz didn't fire until after Future Prison Bitch Rittenhouse had already shot two people.

He didn't fire the first shot and he was being threatened and I don't give shit if he was only 17. His well-being isn't worth any less. Had those three adult males (one of which was pointing a gun at him which you will not address) not chased them, neither of them would have been in danger. What QANON has to do with any of this is only due to your active imagination.

Wow, do you have a preception problem.

Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum first. Rosenbaum was unarmed. When the angry mob tried to take Rittenhouse into custody as he was running away, he shot two more people.

I'm surprised you aren't trying to claim they were all Crisis Actors... that's your usual kind of crazy.

Cocksucker Joe, USA Today reported a shot was fired while Rittenhouse was running away but I can't tell from the footage. It doesn't change my opinion either way. You have three adults chasing him and screaming expletives at him. Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard and the other two were closing in. He did the right thing and he should walk away from this virtually unscathed as he should. I find it hilarious that leftards have pissed their adult undergarments over the fact that Rittenhouse had a gun he used in self-defense but are strangely quiet about Gaige Grosskreutz that was also chasing him and then rushed him (also being armed) and later expressed regret that he didn't get to empty his clip into Rittenhouse. He was too slow. Rittenhouse should have aimed higher and to his right but all in all? It was a successful night for Rittenhouse. Paypay

Oh well, ANTIFA loses two little commie soldiers and Gaige Grosskreutz isn't going to be using his left arm for a very long time. I guess he better practice waving the commie flag right handed. We also have the photo of him screaming like a little girl (bonus). Looks like the ANTFA soy boys needed more than three against one this time. Two commie fucks are now worm food and another is out of commission. They brought it on themselves and I will be sending a donation to Rittenhouse's defense fund. You really are bitter about this and that makes me smile from "ear to ear".

Have a great day, Joseph!!

"Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard..."

LOL

Dickless delusional dale, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Rosenbaum did not have a skateboard.

Excuse me, it was Huber, the other dead commie. I stand corrected.

(snicker)

You're welcome, dickless delusional dale.

Lil faun, the pervert! Fast forward to the 16:33 mark! Great angle if your commie pals getting shot when they tried to attack him......CLASSIC!

Poor, dickless delusional dale, that's a crowd attempting to disarm a murderer. You'll note, the only one charged with a crime there was the teen terrorist.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Uh, Cocksucker Dale, Grosskreutz didn't fire until after Future Prison Bitch Rittenhouse had already shot two people.

He didn't fire the first shot and he was being threatened and I don't give shit if he was only 17. His well-being isn't worth any less. Had those three adult males (one of which was pointing a gun at him which you will not address) not chased them, neither of them would have been in danger. What QANON has to do with any of this is only due to your active imagination.

Wow, do you have a preception problem.

Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum first. Rosenbaum was unarmed. When the angry mob tried to take Rittenhouse into custody as he was running away, he shot two more people.

I'm surprised you aren't trying to claim they were all Crisis Actors... that's your usual kind of crazy.

Cocksucker Joe, USA Today reported a shot was fired while Rittenhouse was running away but I can't tell from the footage. It doesn't change my opinion either way. You have three adults chasing him and screaming expletives at him. Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard and the other two were closing in. He did the right thing and he should walk away from this virtually unscathed as he should. I find it hilarious that leftards have pissed their adult undergarments over the fact that Rittenhouse had a gun he used in self-defense but are strangely quiet about Gaige Grosskreutz that was also chasing him and then rushed him (also being armed) and later expressed regret that he didn't get to empty his clip into Rittenhouse. He was too slow. Rittenhouse should have aimed higher and to his right but all in all? It was a successful night for Rittenhouse. Paypay

Oh well, ANTIFA loses two little commie soldiers and Gaige Grosskreutz isn't going to be using his left arm for a very long time. I guess he better practice waving the commie flag right handed. We also have the photo of him screaming like a little girl (bonus). Looks like the ANTFA soy boys needed more than three against one this time. Two commie fucks are now worm food and another is out of commission. They brought it on themselves and I will be sending a donation to Rittenhouse's defense fund. You really are bitter about this and that makes me smile from "ear to ear".

Have a great day, Joseph!!

"Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard..."

LOL

Dickless delusional dale, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Rosenbaum did not have a skateboard.

Excuse me, it was Huber, the other dead commie. I stand corrected.

(snicker)

You're welcome, dickless delusional dale.

Lil faun, the pervert! Fast forward to the 16:33 mark! Great angle if your commie pals getting shot when they tried to attack him......CLASSIC!

Poor, dickless delusional dale, that's a crowd attempting to disarm a murderer. You'll note, the only one charged with a crime there was the teen terrorist.

you forgot to add,,,IMO,,,

we talked about this faun,,,

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

 

[Faun]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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


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


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

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

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

Until now.

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



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

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

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

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

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

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anything else stupid you want to say???

LOLOL

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

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

LOL

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

AMENDMENT XI​

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

​

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

​

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

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

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

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

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

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

this is what I said in #3082

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

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

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

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

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

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

you forget again to add IMO,,,

 

[Faun]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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


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


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

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

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

Until now.

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



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

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

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

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

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

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anything else stupid you want to say???

LOLOL

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

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

LOL

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

AMENDMENT XI​

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

​

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

​

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

[emphasis added to educate the uninformed]

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

my god youre dense,,,

LOLOL

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

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

this is what I said in #3082

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

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

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

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

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

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

you forget again to add IMO,,,

You're really obsessed with my opinion, huh? You can't seem to stop talking about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

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


View attachment 382165

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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


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


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

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

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

Until now.

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



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

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

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

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

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

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

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

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anything else stupid you want to say???

LOLOL

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

EXACTLY,,,

and it hasnt been changed with an amendment,,,

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

you forget again to add IMO,,,

You're really obsessed with my opinion, huh? You can't seem to stop talking about it.

not really,,,just wanting the discussion to be honest and fair,,,

wouldnt want you to taint the facts of the case,,,

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

you forget again to add IMO,,,

You're really obsessed with my opinion, huh? You can't seem to stop talking about it.

not really,,,just wanting the discussion to be honest and fair,,,

wouldnt want you to taint the facts of the case,,,

No, it's your obsession since I've already stated what I post here is my opinion. There's no need for me to mention that in every post. You don't. Nobody does. You only want me to because you're obsessed.

 

[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?

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?

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

that doesnt make him a murderer,,so like we talked about you need to add IMO,,,

Only if you ignore the law.

which law???

the one that says you have a right to defend yourself against violent racist???

The one that says it's a crime for a 17 year old to carry a firearm and the other that says self defense is not an option to someone committing a crime.

you forget again to add IMO,,,

You're really obsessed with my opinion, huh? You can't seem to stop talking about it.

not really,,,just wanting the discussion to be honest and fair,,,

wouldnt want you to taint the facts of the case,,,

No, it's your obsession since I've already stated what I post here is my opinion. There's no need for me to mention that in every post. You don't. Nobody does. You only want me to because you're obsessed.

yes there is,,,

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Uh, Cocksucker Dale, Grosskreutz didn't fire until after Future Prison Bitch Rittenhouse had already shot two people.

He didn't fire the first shot and he was being threatened and I don't give shit if he was only 17. His well-being isn't worth any less. Had those three adult males (one of which was pointing a gun at him which you will not address) not chased them, neither of them would have been in danger. What QANON has to do with any of this is only due to your active imagination.

Wow, do you have a preception problem.

Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum first. Rosenbaum was unarmed. When the angry mob tried to take Rittenhouse into custody as he was running away, he shot two more people.

I'm surprised you aren't trying to claim they were all Crisis Actors... that's your usual kind of crazy.

Cocksucker Joe, USA Today reported a shot was fired while Rittenhouse was running away but I can't tell from the footage. It doesn't change my opinion either way. You have three adults chasing him and screaming expletives at him. Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard and the other two were closing in. He did the right thing and he should walk away from this virtually unscathed as he should. I find it hilarious that leftards have pissed their adult undergarments over the fact that Rittenhouse had a gun he used in self-defense but are strangely quiet about Gaige Grosskreutz that was also chasing him and then rushed him (also being armed) and later expressed regret that he didn't get to empty his clip into Rittenhouse. He was too slow. Rittenhouse should have aimed higher and to his right but all in all? It was a successful night for Rittenhouse. Paypay

Oh well, ANTIFA loses two little commie soldiers and Gaige Grosskreutz isn't going to be using his left arm for a very long time. I guess he better practice waving the commie flag right handed. We also have the photo of him screaming like a little girl (bonus). Looks like the ANTFA soy boys needed more than three against one this time. Two commie fucks are now worm food and another is out of commission. They brought it on themselves and I will be sending a donation to Rittenhouse's defense fund. You really are bitter about this and that makes me smile from "ear to ear".

Have a great day, Joseph!!

"Rosenbaum hit him with his skateboard..."

LOL

Dickless delusional dale, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Rosenbaum did not have a skateboard.

Excuse me, it was Huber, the other dead commie. I stand corrected.

(snicker)

You're welcome, dickless delusional dale.

Lil faun, the pervert! Fast forward to the 16:33 mark! Great angle if your commie pals getting shot when they tried to attack him......CLASSIC!

Poor, dickless delusional dale, that's a crowd attempting to disarm a murderer. You'll note, the only one charged with a crime there was the teen terrorist.

The teen did nothing wrong---while criminals attacking people and burning the city down did. We don't need 'charges' to know right from wrong. We do understand what a miscarriage of justice is.

 

[bripat9643]

that law is called "self defense",,,

Which is not applicable to the teen murderer who was committing a crime by carrying a firearm.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...​

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

What part of "misdemeanor" didn't you understand?