Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You assume that using a firearm to kill 2 people IN AND OF ITSELF is felonious, which is why you are fucking gun grabber.LOLOLNot if you're under 18, fucking moron...Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carryThe kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun lawsYou idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.
A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.
The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.
If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.
Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.
.
I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.
You're an imbecile.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.(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.
Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.There goes that felony murder theory.(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.
Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.
Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carry
You're an imbecile.
Don't bring a skateboard to a gun fight.And remember boys and girls, a Patriot with an AR-15 always beats a violent left wing foreign-funded domestic terrorist carrying a SKATEBOARD.
.
It's not self defense moron when the actor is engaged in criminal activity. Which the teen murderer was by a) illegally possessing a firearm; and b) having that firearm to protect someone else's property.Not if it's in self defense, moron.LOLOLNot if you're under 18, fucking moron...Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carryThe kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun lawsYou idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.
A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.
The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.
If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.
Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.
.
I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.
You're an imbecile.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.(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.
Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.There goes that felony murder theory.(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.
Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.
You assume that using a firearm to kill 2 people IN AND OF ITSELF is felonious, which is why you are fucking gun grabber.LOLOLNot if you're under 18, fucking moron...Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carryThe kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun lawsYou idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.
A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.
The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.
If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.
Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.
.
I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.
You're an imbecile.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.(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.
Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.There goes that felony murder theory.(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.
Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.
Did the kid fear for his life? Was that fear reasonable? That's all that matters.
You don't decide the rules you leftist moron.Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. This is an internet forum, not a courtroom. He's guilty as sin.How can I agree when I don't know anything about the case yet? Are we not innocent until proven guilty in America? You must agree with me that all those rioters that were arrested should have to go to court.Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLMSo you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.I wouldn't be so sure of that.The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the peopleAntifa BLM
He was carrying a gun illegally after all.
I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail timeIt wouldn't be a bad thing to see those Communist scum shot down in the streets
I see you learned some new phrases by reading at this forum. Good for you.Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. This is an internet forum, not a courtroom. He's guilty as sin.How can I agree when I don't know anything about the case yet? Are we not innocent until proven guilty in America? You must agree with me that all those rioters that were arrested should have to go to court.Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLMSo you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.I wouldn't be so sure of that.The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the people
He was carrying a gun illegally after all.
I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time
Nope---------innocent as hell.................
And the dipchit trump-haters are so stupid that they don't realize that going after this kid will only back fire on their arses as the suburban mothers and grandmothers such as myself will only feel a need to protect him as we are also at the same time developing a strong hate of the dem brown shirts rioting and attacking people.
Sweet kid volunteering to help hurt people and clean up graffitti verses violent drug up violent communists and BLM criminals attacking him and burning down cities? You really want to put this image into mothers heads about what the dems are really about?
Play stupid games---because you idiot trump haters are going to be win stupid prizes like ust not the loss of the presidency again, but likely congress as well.
Are you still claiming he called the teen murderer the n-word for pointing his gun at him??View attachment 380790
Stop me, pussy.You don't decide the rules you leftist moron.Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. This is an internet forum, not a courtroom. He's guilty as sin.How can I agree when I don't know anything about the case yet? Are we not innocent until proven guilty in America? You must agree with me that all those rioters that were arrested should have to go to court.Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLMSo you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.I wouldn't be so sure of that.The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the people
He was carrying a gun illegally after all.
I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time
LOLOLI see you learned some new phrases by reading at this forum. Good for you.Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. This is an internet forum, not a courtroom. He's guilty as sin.How can I agree when I don't know anything about the case yet? Are we not innocent until proven guilty in America? You must agree with me that all those rioters that were arrested should have to go to court.Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLMSo you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.I wouldn't be so sure of that.The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the people
He was carrying a gun illegally after all.
I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time
Nope---------innocent as hell.................
And the dipchit trump-haters are so stupid that they don't realize that going after this kid will only back fire on their arses as the suburban mothers and grandmothers such as myself will only feel a need to protect him as we are also at the same time developing a strong hate of the dem brown shirts rioting and attacking people.
Sweet kid volunteering to help hurt people and clean up graffitti verses violent drug up violent communists and BLM criminals attacking him and burning down cities? You really want to put this image into mothers heads about what the dems are really about?
Play stupid games---because you idiot trump haters are going to be win stupid prizes like ust not the loss of the presidency again, but likely congress as well.
Orange cat crushed you.
Zero cred left.
Crawl back in your hole.
Are you still claiming he called the teen murderer the n-word for pointing his gun at him??
If you are jaywalking, does that make it murder? Only a fucking moron like you would say it does. "Criminal" means he's committing a felony. A) is a misdemeanor, and b) isn't a crime of any kind.It's not self defense moron when the actor is engaged in criminal activity. Which the teen murderer was by a) illegally possessing a firearm; and b) having that firearm to protect someone else's property.Not if it's in self defense, moron.LOLOLNot if you're under 18, fucking moron...Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carryThe kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun lawsYou idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.
A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.
The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.
If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.
Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.
.
I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.
You're an imbecile.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.(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.
Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.There goes that felony murder theory.(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.
Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity
Misdemeanors do not constitute "criminal activity," moronIt's not self defense moron when the actor is engaged in criminal activity. Which the teen murderer was by a) illegally possessing a firearm; and b) having that firearm to protect someone else's property.Not if it's in self defense, moron.LOLOLNot if you're under 18, fucking moron...Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carryThe kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun lawsYou idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.
A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.
The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.
If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.
Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.
.
I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.
You're an imbecile.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.(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.
Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.There goes that felony murder theory.(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.
Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity
