Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy
Comments
-
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?0 -
Cool, we're in agreement on that.JB16057 said:
No. I'm not OK with 17 year olds being in possession of and walking around with assault rifles.Merkin Baller said:
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.JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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.
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.
0 -
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
Regardless, I did say how I felt about a 17 year old possessing a firearm.0 -
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. lolwww.myspace.com0 -
If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.0
-
JB16057 said:
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
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.History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.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).
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.5509/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Facts!Halifax2TheMax said:JB16057 said:
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
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.History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.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).
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
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?RYME said:If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.
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....Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
what do you mean?RYME said:If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.
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."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:
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?
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.0 -
The charges were thrown out because there was an exception to the law where it didn’t apply to rifles with barrels over 16”josevolution said:
Facts!Halifax2TheMax said:JB16057 said:
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
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.History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.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).
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
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 wrong0 -
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?mace1229 said:
The charges were thrown out because there was an exception to the law where it didn’t apply to rifles with barrels over 16”josevolution said:
Facts!Halifax2TheMax said:JB16057 said:
By the judge? Show me the Wisconsin law that says otherwise.Halifax2TheMax said:
By the judge. Regardless, tell us how you feel about 17 year olds possessing firearms.JB16057 said:
Get your facts straight. He was allowed to carry the gun. That's why the gun charge against him was dropped.Halifax2TheMax said:
Tell us how you feel about a 17 year old possessing a firearm that they weren’t legally allowed to possess.JB16057 said:
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.josevolution said:
ok we know he was found innocent but I’ll ask you were you outraged by what he did?JB16057 said:
You should ask the jury that found him not guilty....Merkin Baller said:
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?
Guess I’ll leave my mom’s basement now and go to junior high summer school.
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.History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.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).
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
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 wrong09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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'?RYME said:If you can't see where the white privilege actually is, than you just don't care.'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 10 -
mace1229 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
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?
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.0 -
0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:mace1229 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
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?
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.
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?0 -
mace1229 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:mace1229 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
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?
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.
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 on0 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
If only the dems would form an investigative committee to look into those. I’d really like to see the stone tablet and the Laugh and Learn.mickeyrat said:09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help