One of the most popular threads on this site is "America's Gun Violence". Hunter has a history with breaking gun laws and being a stupid gun owner. He broke the law yet he is skating by with no penalty. This is one of the biggest issues with guns in America. We have laws and often times they don't get enforced. We will never fix our gun issues if we don't start throwing the book at gun laws being broken. This is another fine example of how Democrats and Pearl Jam Message Board Members wants to bitch about guns yet they applaud when one of their own gets away with doing no time.
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
Do you realize it was a Trump appointed attorney who investigated him for 5 years? Lol. And here you are...blaming a Pearl Jam message board somehow?
maga!
It doesn't matter who investigated him. Hunter should be getting harsher charges when it comes to the gun laws at a minimum. You can't argue with what I said so you have to throw Trump and maga into the conversation to deflect.
Why have gun laws if they don't get fully enforced? This is a huge part of the issue with America and guns but you'd rather discuss Trump and maga. Good job!
The problem isn't a guy having a gun that has a drug issue...the problem is people buying AR-15s and shooting up schools.
ARs make up something like 1% of gun deaths though. I’m going off memory, so that may not be exact, but it’s very, very small. So can’t blame ARs for our gun problem.
It's the preferred gun of choice to shoot up a school. Well documented.
That may be true. Doesn’t change the fact ARs are used in just a small fraction of gun crimes.
Some said not enforcing gun laws is the problem. You said ARs are the problem. They are the smallest piece to the puzzle.
So why drag this on then? He specifically mentioned schools in the first post of his that you replied to and now you say you agree with him. What are we doing here?
Thankfully all those other people who killed people with handguns didn't use AR 15's or else we'd likely have thousands and thousands more dead people due to guns in this country.
Yeah I'm not going to dive into all gun offenses. Likely a lot relate to gun on gun where both shooters are willing participants.
Christ if you can't see that people being able to buy assault weapons is the problem then start a different thread. And yes....an AR15 is a fucking assault weapon.
I said I don’t have any issue with stricter assault weapons laws. But also they are a very small piece to the puzzle but yet get all of the attention. I used 1% as a guess, according to this article is 3% of homicide use assault rifles. “Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.” https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Rifles –%20the%20category%20that%20includes,as%20“type%20not%20stated.” So a complete ban on all assault rifles, assuming those people will just give up crime and not use another weapon because of a ban, we only reduce firearm murders by at most 3%.. that still leaves us with an incredible high number of un deaths compared to other countries. So yeah, our gun problem is far more than assault rifles.
This was all brought up with respect to Hunter. Asking why are we so lenient on current gun laws? Which I agree with. If we can’t hold people accountable le for illegally possessing a firearm, what’s the point in making new laws if we don’t enforce the ones we have. I think we should be strict on people who illegally possess guns. Why would anyone who opposes gun crime be against that? But yet, seems like many don’t agree with holding Hunter accountable for that. Crack down on guns. That means punish people who buy, sell, transport, use or possess them illegally. That, to me, seems like step 1 of common sense gun laws we keep hearing we need. I don’t think he should be in prison for safety reason. But massive fines, probation, community service, etc would be appropriate.
One of the most popular threads on this site is "America's Gun Violence". Hunter has a history with breaking gun laws and being a stupid gun owner. He broke the law yet he is skating by with no penalty. This is one of the biggest issues with guns in America. We have laws and often times they don't get enforced. We will never fix our gun issues if we don't start throwing the book at gun laws being broken. This is another fine example of how Democrats and Pearl Jam Message Board Members wants to bitch about guns yet they applaud when one of their own gets away with doing no time.
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
Do you realize it was a Trump appointed attorney who investigated him for 5 years? Lol. And here you are...blaming a Pearl Jam message board somehow?
maga!
It doesn't matter who investigated him. Hunter should be getting harsher charges when it comes to the gun laws at a minimum. You can't argue with what I said so you have to throw Trump and maga into the conversation to deflect.
Why have gun laws if they don't get fully enforced? This is a huge part of the issue with America and guns but you'd rather discuss Trump and maga. Good job!
The problem isn't a guy having a gun that has a drug issue...the problem is people buying AR-15s and shooting up schools.
ARs make up something like 1% of gun deaths though. I’m going off memory, so that may not be exact, but it’s very, very small. So can’t blame ARs for our gun problem.
It's the preferred gun of choice to shoot up a school. Well documented.
That may be true. Doesn’t change the fact ARs are used in just a small fraction of gun crimes.
Some said not enforcing gun laws is the problem. You said ARs are the problem. They are the smallest piece to the puzzle.
So why drag this on then? He specifically mentioned schools in the first post of his that you replied to and now you say you agree with him. What are we doing here?
Thankfully all those other people who killed people with handguns didn't use AR 15's or else we'd likely have thousands and thousands more dead people due to guns in this country.
Yeah I'm not going to dive into all gun offenses. Likely a lot relate to gun on gun where both shooters are willing participants.
Christ if you can't see that people being able to buy assault weapons is the problem then start a different thread. And yes....an AR15 is a fucking assault weapon.
I said I don’t have any issue with stricter assault weapons laws. But also they are a very small piece to the puzzle but yet get all of the attention. I used 1% as a guess, according to this article is 3% of homicide use assault rifles. “Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.” https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Rifles –%20the%20category%20that%20includes,as%20“type%20not%20stated.”
So a complete ban on all assault rifles, assuming those people will just give up crime and not use another weapon because of a ban, we only reduce firearm murders by at most 3%.. that still leaves us with an incredible high number of un deaths compared to other countries. So yeah, our gun problem is far more than assault rifles.
This was all brought up with respect to Hunter. Asking why are we so or isn’t on current gun laws? Which I agree with. If we can’t hold people accountable le for illegally possessing a firearm, what’s the point in making new laws if we don’t enforce the ones we have. I think we should be strict on people who illegally possess guns. Why would anyone who opposes gun crime be against that? But yet, seems like many don’t agree with holding Hunter accountable for that. Crack down on guns. That means punish people who buy, sell, transport, use or possess them illegally. That, to me, seems like step 1 of common sense gun laws we keep hearing we need
I'm all for enforcing gun laws, but I also understand plea deals are a pretty crucial aspect of our legal system... without them, our courts would be bogged down indefinitely, unable to do anything.
As I understand it, the gun offense was that he checked off 'no' on the application when asked if he was under the influence of or uses illegal drugs. If I have that wrong, I'm open to being corrected, but if I have that right... what punishment for this offense would have satisfied you?
He struck a plea deal w/ a trump appointed prosecutor... why would that prosecutor have taken that deal? I don't know, I don't know 100% of the details of the case. Do you?
One of the most popular threads on this site is "America's Gun Violence". Hunter has a history with breaking gun laws and being a stupid gun owner. He broke the law yet he is skating by with no penalty. This is one of the biggest issues with guns in America. We have laws and often times they don't get enforced. We will never fix our gun issues if we don't start throwing the book at gun laws being broken. This is another fine example of how Democrats and Pearl Jam Message Board Members wants to bitch about guns yet they applaud when one of their own gets away with doing no time.
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!
Do you realize it was a Trump appointed attorney who investigated him for 5 years? Lol. And here you are...blaming a Pearl Jam message board somehow?
maga!
It doesn't matter who investigated him. Hunter should be getting harsher charges when it comes to the gun laws at a minimum. You can't argue with what I said so you have to throw Trump and maga into the conversation to deflect.
Why have gun laws if they don't get fully enforced? This is a huge part of the issue with America and guns but you'd rather discuss Trump and maga. Good job!
The problem isn't a guy having a gun that has a drug issue...the problem is people buying AR-15s and shooting up schools.
ARs make up something like 1% of gun deaths though. I’m going off memory, so that may not be exact, but it’s very, very small. So can’t blame ARs for our gun problem.
It's the preferred gun of choice to shoot up a school. Well documented.
That may be true. Doesn’t change the fact ARs are used in just a small fraction of gun crimes.
Some said not enforcing gun laws is the problem. You said ARs are the problem. They are the smallest piece to the puzzle.
So why drag this on then? He specifically mentioned schools in the first post of his that you replied to and now you say you agree with him. What are we doing here?
Thankfully all those other people who killed people with handguns didn't use AR 15's or else we'd likely have thousands and thousands more dead people due to guns in this country.
Yeah I'm not going to dive into all gun offenses. Likely a lot relate to gun on gun where both shooters are willing participants.
Christ if you can't see that people being able to buy assault weapons is the problem then start a different thread. And yes....an AR15 is a fucking assault weapon.
I said I don’t have any issue with stricter assault weapons laws. But also they are a very small piece to the puzzle but yet get all of the attention. I used 1% as a guess, according to this article is 3% of homicide use assault rifles. “Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.” https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Rifles –%20the%20category%20that%20includes,as%20“type%20not%20stated.”
So a complete ban on all assault rifles, assuming those people will just give up crime and not use another weapon because of a ban, we only reduce firearm murders by at most 3%.. that still leaves us with an incredible high number of un deaths compared to other countries. So yeah, our gun problem is far more than assault rifles.
This was all brought up with respect to Hunter. Asking why are we so or isn’t on current gun laws? Which I agree with. If we can’t hold people accountable le for illegally possessing a firearm, what’s the point in making new laws if we don’t enforce the ones we have. I think we should be strict on people who illegally possess guns. Why would anyone who opposes gun crime be against that? But yet, seems like many don’t agree with holding Hunter accountable for that. Crack down on guns. That means punish people who buy, sell, transport, use or possess them illegally. That, to me, seems like step 1 of common sense gun laws we keep hearing we need
I'm all for enforcing gun laws, but I also understand plea deals are a pretty crucial aspect of our legal system... without them, our courts would be bogged down indefinitely, unable to do anything.
As I understand it, the gun offense was that he checked off 'no' on the application when asked if he was under the influence of or uses illegal drugs. If I have that wrong, I'm open to being corrected, but if I have that right... what punishment for this offense would have satisfied you?
He struck a plea deal w/ a trump appointed prosecutor... why would that prosecutor have taken that deal? I don't know, I don't know 100% of the details of the case. Do you?
It leans into the complexity of getting a conviction for someone who is an addict and their medical history. Hunter admitted to the crime in his book and was initially questioned and investigated by local law enforcement. The DA declined to press charges because of the complexity and difficulty of securing a conviction for lying on the form due to claiming he wasn’t a user. Perhaps part of Hunter’s recovery is admitting guilt for past mistakes and paying the price?
If folks were really concerned about enforcing current gun laws, then they wouldn’t vote for candidates that run on defunding the ATF. Full funding of ATF would allow them to go after the “responsible” gun sellers and buyers who make the straw purchases. But we know the NRA and the firearms manufacturers would never get on board with it, just like some posters on here wouldn’t get on board with it. Can’t have Jack booted thugs infringing on 2A, dontcha know?
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
As I understand it, the defense found that there were no laws on the books stating that a 17yo couldn't be in possession of a firearm, only that a 17yo couldn't own one.
So if my recollection is correct, again I ask, where were all the concerns from conservatives about tightening up those gun laws after that happened? Are you ok w/ 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles?
It's not as if he was protecting his parents house or business.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
As I understand it, the defense found that there were no laws on the books stating that a 17yo couldn't be in possession of a firearm, only that a 17yo couldn't own one.
So if my recollection is correct, again I ask, where were all the concerns from conservatives about tightening up those gun laws after that happened? Are you ok w/ 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles?
It's not as if he was protecting his parents house or business.
No. I'm not OK with 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
As I understand it, the defense found that there were no laws on the books stating that a 17yo couldn't be in possession of a firearm, only that a 17yo couldn't own one.
So if my recollection is correct, again I ask, where were all the concerns from conservatives about tightening up those gun laws after that happened? Are you ok w/ 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles?
It's not as if he was protecting his parents house or business.
No. I'm not OK with 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles.
It's worth mentioning Rittenhouse become a right wing celebrity and hero since then.
For what it's worth, I don't see the Hunter Biden verdict getting any sort of a similar reaction (or 'applause' if you will) from the left that the Rittenhouse verdict got from the right, but I digress.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing a firearm.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,298
JB, I'd be more inclined to believe you truly care only about the gun thing if you did not have such a lengthy post history full of Hunter Biden fever dreams. Personally, I think you're mainly just upset that none of the stuff the maga right media machine has been feeding it's viewers for the last few years came to fruition.
That's not to say I don't think you don't care about the gun laws, though. I know you've talked about that stuff in the past. But this is Hunter Biden. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the guy you've all been obsessed with since before Trump was impeached for trying to bribe Zelinsky for dirt on the "Biden Crime Family." Just admit your pissed none of that stuff is going to send any of them to prison. lol
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing 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; 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.
(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.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing 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; 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.
(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.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.
Hi Ryme....what's your point? Are you under the assumption that people are happy he got a plea deal? Every one i have seen has said they would be fine with whatever became of the investigation, including if he ended up spending time in prison. Or are you unaware that it was a Trump appointed attorney who investigated him for five years?
It might seem shocking to folks on the right who've been obsessed with this guy for years, but most reasonable people don't give two shits about Hunter Biden as he's private citizen.
If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.
what do you mean?
especially given the fact that most people are never even charged with these charges. earlier in the thread there are posts showing that him having the last name biden actually hurt him in this case.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
For one this is a false comparison because we were talking about enforcing gun laws better. Kyle, as far as I know, didn’t break any. No lack of enforcement here. Just poor laws.
Second, I don’t recall anyone on this forum saying what Kyle did was a good idea. Most everyone here agrees a 17 year old shouldn’t legally be allowed to walk through the streets with an assault rifle. I’m all for restricting minors for carrying rifles. Even raise the age from 18 to 21 like a hand gun.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing 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; 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.
(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.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
The charges were thrown out because there was an exception to the law where it didn’t apply to rifles with barrels over 16” I haven’t looked up the actual low, but that’s what the defense argued and the judge agreed and threw it out. I haven’t heard anyone say they were both wrong
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?
I was frustrated that a kid put himself into that circumstance but as for him killing the people that attacked him first, no, that does not outrage me. Kyle had to defend himself against people threatening his life or die. I would do that same thing except I would never have put myself in that position to begin with but if my life is ever threatened, I won't hesitate to kill. If you remember, Kyle only shot the people that threatened his life.
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing 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; 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.
(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.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
The charges were thrown out because there was an exception to the law where it didn’t apply to rifles with barrels over 16” I haven’t looked up the actual low, but that’s what the defense argued and the judge agreed and threw it out. I haven’t heard anyone say they were both wrong
What in lawyerly parlance is known as a “technocaaaaliteeee.” I’d fathom that with a few switcharoos of the races and legal representaaaations involved, there might just, maybe, have been a different outcome for all those involved. If I dare saaaaaaaay. Beg your pardon, perhaps?
If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.
My understanding is that the sentencing Hunter received is pretty much on par with what others in his scenario would have received. Do you feel sentencing should be extra-punitive if an individual is close to a politician you don't like? Isn't that antithetical to 'equal under the eyes of the law'?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
For one this is a false comparison because we were talking about enforcing gun laws better. Kyle, as far as I know, didn’t break any. No lack of enforcement here. Just poor laws.
Second, I don’t recall anyone on this forum saying what Kyle did was a good idea. Most everyone here agrees a 17 year old shouldn’t legally be allowed to walk through the streets with an assault rifle. I’m all for restricting minors for carrying rifles. Even raise the age from 18 to 21 like a hand gun.
I don't think it's a false comparison at all. The conversation about enforcing gun laws stems from a desire to curb our nation's gun violence, right?
In one situation we have a minor that was in possession of a gun he wasn't licensed to carry who killed 3 people, and walked on all charges due to poorly written laws.
In the other situation we have someone who's been the subject of intense scrutiny and investigations for several years resulting in a couple tax law charges and one for lying on a firearm application, a charge which as I understand is rarely prosecuted. He'll be convicted through a plea deal agreed to by a trump appointed prosecutor. He's admitting guilt, will be convicted, and will be punished to the prosecutor's satisfaction.
If you're more upset about the latter situation than the former, I would argue that our nation's problem with gun violence isn't what's motivating that anger.
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
For one this is a false comparison because we were talking about enforcing gun laws better. Kyle, as far as I know, didn’t break any. No lack of enforcement here. Just poor laws.
Second, I don’t recall anyone on this forum saying what Kyle did was a good idea. Most everyone here agrees a 17 year old shouldn’t legally be allowed to walk through the streets with an assault rifle. I’m all for restricting minors for carrying rifles. Even raise the age from 18 to 21 like a hand gun.
I don't think it's a false comparison at all. The conversation about enforcing gun laws stems from a desire to curb our nation's gun violence, right?
In one situation we have a minor that was in possession of a gun he wasn't licensed to carry who killed 3 people, and walked on all charges due to poorly written laws.
In the other situation we have someone who's been the subject of intense scrutiny and investigations for several years resulting in a couple tax law charges and one for lying on a firearm application, a charge which as I understand is rarely prosecuted. He'll be convicted through a plea deal agreed to by a trump appointed prosecutor. He's admitting guilt, will be convicted, and will be punished to the prosecutor's satisfaction.
If you're more upset about the latter situation than the former, I would argue that our nation's problem with gun violence isn't what's motivating that anger.
Hunter’s case doesn’t upset me more. I just don’t think you can compare then. One was proven to have broken the law, one did. The law should be changed to where a 17 year old can’t legally carry in public and we should enforce all gun laws. The fact it’s rarely enforced is part of the problem. Why have gun laws that it’s well known to be rarely enforced, and when it is the punishment is basically non existent?
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
For one this is a false comparison because we were talking about enforcing gun laws better. Kyle, as far as I know, didn’t break any. No lack of enforcement here. Just poor laws.
Second, I don’t recall anyone on this forum saying what Kyle did was a good idea. Most everyone here agrees a 17 year old shouldn’t legally be allowed to walk through the streets with an assault rifle. I’m all for restricting minors for carrying rifles. Even raise the age from 18 to 21 like a hand gun.
I don't think it's a false comparison at all. The conversation about enforcing gun laws stems from a desire to curb our nation's gun violence, right?
In one situation we have a minor that was in possession of a gun he wasn't licensed to carry who killed 3 people, and walked on all charges due to poorly written laws.
In the other situation we have someone who's been the subject of intense scrutiny and investigations for several years resulting in a couple tax law charges and one for lying on a firearm application, a charge which as I understand is rarely prosecuted. He'll be convicted through a plea deal agreed to by a trump appointed prosecutor. He's admitting guilt, will be convicted, and will be punished to the prosecutor's satisfaction.
If you're more upset about the latter situation than the former, I would argue that our nation's problem with gun violence isn't what's motivating that anger.
Hunter’s case doesn’t upset me more. I just don’t think you can compare then. One was proven to have broken the law, one did. The law should be changed to where a 17 year old can’t legally carry in public and we should enforce all gun laws. The fact it’s rarely enforced is part of the problem. Why have gun laws that it’s well known to be rarely enforced, and when it is the punishment is basically non existent?
I agree, laws not being enforced is definitely part of the problem, as is idolizing a minor who went into a riot he had nothing to do with, armed with an assault rifle only to end up killing 3 people. If we’re all against gun violence, it’s not unfair to ask why conservatives would prop up KR as a hero, but want stiffer penalties for Biden.
The good news here is that the law was enforced. Biden was accused of having violated the law, was charged accordingly and the prosecutor is accepting a plea deal. He’ll be convicted and sentenced at the judge’s discretion.
I didn’t suggest that he shouldn’t have been charged; I’m all for it, screw that guy. No one should be above the law. The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone though, that after all the fear mongering over Hunter & the Biden crime family, this is all they’ve been able to dig up. Don’t worry though, the prosecutor said the investigations into Hunter will continue.
Post edited by Merkin Baller on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,802
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
“Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Rifles –%20the%20category%20that%20includes,as%20“type%20not%20stated.”
So a complete ban on all assault rifles, assuming those people will just give up crime and not use another weapon because of a ban, we only reduce firearm murders by at most 3%.. that still leaves us with an incredible high number of un deaths compared to other countries.
So yeah, our gun problem is far more than assault rifles.
This was all brought up with respect to Hunter. Asking why are we so lenient on current gun laws? Which I agree with. If we can’t hold people accountable le for illegally possessing a firearm, what’s the point in making new laws if we don’t enforce the ones we have. I think we should be strict on people who illegally possess guns. Why would anyone who opposes gun crime be against that? But yet, seems like many don’t agree with holding Hunter accountable for that. Crack down on guns. That means punish people who buy, sell, transport, use or possess them illegally. That, to me, seems like step 1 of common sense gun laws we keep hearing we need.
I don’t think he should be in prison for safety reason. But massive fines, probation, community service, etc would be appropriate.
As I understand it, the gun offense was that he checked off 'no' on the application when asked if he was under the influence of or uses illegal drugs. If I have that wrong, I'm open to being corrected, but if I have that right... what punishment for this offense would have satisfied you?
He struck a plea deal w/ a trump appointed prosecutor... why would that prosecutor have taken that deal? I don't know, I don't know 100% of the details of the case. Do you?
If folks were really concerned about enforcing current gun laws, then they wouldn’t vote for candidates that run on defunding the ATF. Full funding of ATF would allow them to go after the “responsible” gun sellers and buyers who make the straw purchases. But we know the NRA and the firearms manufacturers would never get on board with it, just like some posters on here wouldn’t get on board with it. Can’t have Jack booted thugs infringing on 2A, dontcha know?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Where were these concerns about tightening up gun laws when a 17yo Kyle Rittenhouse murdered multiple Americans at a protest w/ a gun that was given to him / he didn't own?
So if my recollection is correct, again I ask, where were all the concerns from conservatives about tightening up those gun laws after that happened? Are you ok w/ 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles?
It's not as if he was protecting his parents house or business.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The person that bought the gun for Rittenhouse did get into trouble but the felony charge was dropped which I don't agree with.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-bought-rifle-kyle-rittenhouse-plea-deal/story?id=82178053
It's worth mentioning Rittenhouse become a right wing celebrity and hero since then.
For what it's worth, I don't see the Hunter Biden verdict getting any sort of a similar reaction (or 'applause' if you will) from the left that the Rittenhouse verdict got from the right, but I digress.
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing a firearm.
That's not to say I don't think you don't care about the gun laws, though. I know you've talked about that stuff in the past. But this is Hunter Biden. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the guy you've all been obsessed with since before Trump was impeached for trying to bribe Zelinsky for dirt on the "Biden Crime Family." Just admit your pissed none of that stuff is going to send any of them to prison. lol
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It might seem shocking to folks on the right who've been obsessed with this guy for years, but most reasonable people don't give two shits about Hunter Biden as he's private citizen.
Genuinely confused by your post....
especially given the fact that most people are never even charged with these charges. earlier in the thread there are posts showing that him having the last name biden actually hurt him in this case.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Second, I don’t recall anyone on this forum saying what Kyle did was a good idea. Most everyone here agrees a 17 year old shouldn’t legally be allowed to walk through the streets with an assault rifle. I’m all for restricting minors for carrying rifles. Even raise the age from 18 to 21 like a hand gun.
I haven’t looked up the actual low, but that’s what the defense argued and the judge agreed and threw it out. I haven’t heard anyone say they were both wrong
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't think it's a false comparison at all. The conversation about enforcing gun laws stems from a desire to curb our nation's gun violence, right?
In one situation we have a minor that was in possession of a gun he wasn't licensed to carry who killed 3 people, and walked on all charges due to poorly written laws.
In the other situation we have someone who's been the subject of intense scrutiny and investigations for several years resulting in a couple tax law charges and one for lying on a firearm application, a charge which as I understand is rarely prosecuted. He'll be convicted through a plea deal agreed to by a trump appointed prosecutor. He's admitting guilt, will be convicted, and will be punished to the prosecutor's satisfaction.
If you're more upset about the latter situation than the former, I would argue that our nation's problem with gun violence isn't what's motivating that anger.
The law should be changed to where a 17 year old can’t legally carry in public and we should enforce all gun laws. The fact it’s rarely enforced is part of the problem. Why have gun laws that it’s well known to be rarely enforced, and when it is the punishment is basically non existent?
Don’t worry though, the prosecutor said the investigations into Hunter will continue.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©