Self defense?

[CptTrips]

Not in my original post

It means exactly what it sounds like..the truth

Eagler

So your original post wasn't political trolling, but that one was? 


So what "reason" were you referring to in the quoted post?  It's a simple question. Why are you so hesitant to answer honestly?

Given the reason they allowed then is gone...

[rabbidrabbit]

only if your parents sign for it and only for hunting.  I'm surprised judge didn't allow the illegal possession of a rifle.  that was clearly a crime.  his friend is facing up to 20 years for buying the rifle for him.

semp

I'll simply point out the observable fact that this was adjudicated in this case.  The court found that his possession of the gun was lawful.  Even the prosecution offered no disagreement when questioned by the judge.  The reality is they knew it wasn't a valid charge but did it anyway and lied to the press and the court about the legal basis of their position.  Sorry you fell for that lie.

[Busher]

I'll simply point out the observable fact that this was adjudicated in this case.  The court found that his possession of the gun was lawful.  Even the prosecution offered no disagreement when questioned by the judge.  The reality is they knew it wasn't a valid charge but did it anyway and lied to the press and the court about the legal basis of their position.  Sorry you fell for that lie.

Still gotta wait 7 1/2 years to rent a car though

[guncrasher]

I'll simply point out the observable fact that this was adjudicated in this case.  The court found that his possession of the gun was lawful.  Even the prosecution offered no disagreement when questioned by the judge.  The reality is they knew it wasn't a valid charge but did it anyway and lied to the press and the court about the legal basis of their position.  Sorry you fell for that lie.

the judge decided on his own the law only applied to short barrel rifles. which is not true.

ask yourself this question if he could buy a gun why did he ask his friend to buy it.

and more if he didn't break the law why is his friend facing jail time.

there's a meme going around on Facebook which is amusing.   I wish somebody loved me the way that judge loves the kid.


semp

[rabbidrabbit]

the judge decided on his own the law only applied to short barrel rifles. which is not true.

ask yourself this question if he could buy a gun why did he ask his friend to buy it.

and more if he didn't break the law why is his friend facing jail time.

semp

If you knew there was a ruling and it was ruled as being lawfully possessed, why then do you still falsely declare he was possessing it unlawfully? 

[guncrasher]

If you knew there was a ruling and it was ruled as being lawfully possessed, why then do you still falsely declare he was possessing it unlawfully?

like I said the judge loved him. why is his friend facing jail time if it was lawful possession?


semp

[rabbidrabbit]

like I said the judge loved him. why is his friend facing jail time if it was lawful possession?


semp

Why not simply answer the question.  You knew he was not in possession of the rifle illegally yet stated and seem to be continuing to state something you know is false.  Why ?

[guncrasher]

Why not simply answer the question.  You knew he was not in possession of the rifle illegally yet stated and seem to be continuing to state something you know is false.  Why ?

already answered the question, you just didn't like the answer. the judge decided that the law only applies to short barrel guns.  he could have legally bought the gun with his parents approval.  he didn't.  he had a friend buy it for him, which is illegal. that's why his friend is facing jail time.

the judge just loved him on that charge. his friend isn't gonna be that lucky, he had a different judge.


semp

[rabbidrabbit]

already answered the question, you just didn't like the answer.
semp

You did not answer the question you danced around it and continue to do so now.  The judge made a ruling based on the law which was not contested by the Prosecution.  He did so based on how the law was written and the fact pattern of the case.  It is a matter of observable fact that Kyle was not illegally in possession of the gun yet you continue to falsely claim he was.  Facts actually do matter and ignoring them while coming up with an alternate version does not make the facts no longer facts nor do your opinions become facts simply because you want them to.  As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.  There is no value in discussing opinions if either party can not agree on the actual facts.  Hence, I'm trying to help us all establish the facts.

[Eagler]

Capt you know

Just trying not to aggravate your main derangement syndrome

Eagler

[CptTrips]

Capt you know

Just trying not to aggravate your main derangement syndrome

Eagler

Are you admitting now you were inserting a political statement?  Or were you referring to something other that what it appears?



I'm not saying this because I'm trying to be a forum mod.  I'm saying this because you continually inject political statements in threads and anyone disagreeing has to hold their tongue to avoid breaking the forum rules that you seem to ignore with impunity.  That simply isn't a fair discussion.  You know it, and you are exploiting the advantage of that asymmetry to slip your propaganda in unchallenged.

Either HT needs to remove the rule so we can all reply in kind, or you should abide by the same rules as the rest of us are trying to.

Jeez.  Even DemonSlayer has mostly canned his garbage.  Why don't you do us a favor and join him.

[Eviscerate]

the judge decided on his own the law only applied to short barrel rifles. which is not true.

ask yourself this question if he could buy a gun why did he ask his friend to buy it.

and more if he didn't break the law why is his friend facing jail time.

there's a meme going around on Facebook which is amusing.   I wish somebody loved me the way that judge loves the kid.


semp

Except it is true:

The subsection reads: “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 ...” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.

A loophole or oversight in the law? Perhaps.

His friend is facing jail time because the purchase of the firearm was a straw sale. You check a specific box on the 4473 that asserts you are the transferee/buyer of the firearm. Defendant admitted in testimony that he gave his friend the money to purchase the firearm FOR HIM, with the intent to give it to him when he was legally allowed to OWN (eg. transfer to his name) the firearm at age 18.

[guncrasher]

Except it is true:

The subsection reads: “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 ...” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.

A loophole or oversight in the law? Perhaps.

His friend is facing jail time because the purchase of the firearm was a straw sale. You check a specific box on the 4473 that asserts you are the transferee/buyer of the firearm. Defendant admitted in testimony that he gave his friend the money to purchase the firearm FOR HIM, with the intent to give it to him when he was legally allowed to OWN (eg. transfer to his name) the firearm at age 18.

having somebody else buy a gun when you are not able to do it yourself is against the law. the fact that he took possession of it before he was 18, proves it.  had he gone hunting or perhaps a rifle range would have bee ok.  he took a gun and put himself in a position where he had to use it, isnt cool.  had he stayed where he said according to him to "protect property" even though the owner said he never ask him or anybody else to protect it, would have been ok.  but he put himself in a position in a middle of a riot, that is wrong.  fact is those who were there legally to protect and serve never fired a weapon.  only killing was done by him because he put himself in that position.  that's what I think anyway.


semp

[rabbidrabbit]

having somebody else buy a gun when you are not able to do it yourself is against the law. the fact that he took possession of it before he was 18, proves it.  had he gone hunting or perhaps a rifle range would have bee ok.  he took a gun and put himself in a position where he had to use it, isnt cool.  had he stayed where he said according to him to "protect property" even though the owner said he never ask him or anybody else to protect it, would have been ok.  but he put himself in a position in a middle of a riot, that is wrong.  fact is those who were there legally to protect and serve never fired a weapon.  only killing was done by him because he put himself in that position.  that's what I think anyway.


semp

So you agree he was legally in possession of his rifle?

[guncrasher]

So you agree he was legally in possession of his rifle?

no.

semp