Because we have a system of justice that hinges upon victims, and those they care about, agreeing that justice has been served.
There are certain situations where justice begins with the end of a perpetrator's life.
Cannon Hinnant is the perfect example. If he were my son, I would inform everyone involved that I would not accept anything less than death. If the justice system would not give me justice, I have the right to get it myself.
That's why we have the death penalty.
Umm. I would like to point out that the only things Kyle shot were subhuman animal communists.
If you're out shooting animals, that's hunting.
Checkmate.
Wait... But this also means he's off the hook for murder, because all he shot were subhuman animals... This is a game changer!
That position is legally indefensible. That reads things into the law that are absolutely not there. It runs so far afoul of what is written that no judge would ever rule based on it.
It would be an act of corruption to prosecute Kyle based on his possession of the rifle.
By the letter of the law, he was allowed to possess the rifle.
By the spirit of the law, he was not in violation by having a short barreled rifle, or by being too young for a rifle, or hunting without proper training.
You are arguing the spirit of the law in saying that a minor between the ages of 16-18 must possess a hunting license to possess a rifle or shotgun. I am arguing that the spirit of the law is that a minor between the ages of 16-18 must pass certain requirements before obtaining a hunting license. The only time that would be relevant to rifle possession is if the minor we're out hunting.
This is Wisconsin. Hunting regulation is far more likely the spirit of the law than requirements for possession or ownership.
The rural Wisconsin lawmakers behind these statutes would probably look at us like we're crazy for questioning if a kid can possess and use a rifle.
The law says none of that. I don't care what people want a law to say, I care what it actually says. I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension is lacking. Words mean what they mean, and what is written is what is written.
The guy is right. Since Kyle was clearly hunting Commie scum without proper Commie hunting approval, he was not allowed to possess the AR-15.
Kyle should have taken the proper Communist Hunter Training courses before hunting down the pieces of shit with a rifle.
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. (1) (a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
You're misreading this. There is no language that makes getting hunting approval a requirement. "In compliance" does not mean requirement. He was not hunting, therefore he is not required to have hunting approval. If he does not need hunting approval, then he is in compliance with hunting approval certification and training requirements. He doesn't need to meet the requirements if he is not seeking hunting approval, which makes him in compliance with the legal section.
.29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. (1) (a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
You are imagining words where there are none. Cite your specific texts.
Where did you read that in 29.593?
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
You're wrong. Exceptions exist for rifles and shotguns. Read the relevant laws.
Look through my post history.
In Wisconsin, If someone is in violation of 948.60, they cannot open carry.
The law I referenced pertains to Wisconsin state law regarding local municipality ordinances. The law you referenced is part of state law, and not a local ordinance.
Edit: Basically, the state decides when, where, and who can carry a firearm, not local municipalities. For example, a township can't pass an ordinance against carrying a firearm (open or concealed) in restaurants.
I find no restriction for open carry by age. If you can legally possess the gun in Wisconsin, you can legally open carry it.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/IV/0409/6
I posted this elsewhere, but Wisconsin 948.60 establishes that it is legal for minor, 16 or older, to possess a rifle or shotgun, so long as it is not a short barreled rifle, and they pass certain training courses if they are out hunting.
Wisconsin rifle and shotgun legal age is 16.
See Wisconsin 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Part (3)(c) says: "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."
941.28 deals with SBRs, and 29.304 and .593 deal with hunting. He was not in possession of a short barrel rifle, but might have been hunting commie scum... Edit: my bad, 29.304 establishes age restrictions, 948.60(3)(c) exempts them for rifle and shotgun 16 years or over.
From the reports, it sounds like the driver of that car ventilated him plenty.
I just want a safe and stable environment for my kid to grow up in. My wife and I worked hard to get that.
I don't have a college degree, and my family was homeless when I was born. I am also a person of color, not that it matters. My mother came here from South America for a better life. She came here the legal way, the hard way. The way that requires work and time. She did it because she dreamed of a better life than the shit hole socialist country she's from.
All it takes to achieve the American Dream is work. Anyone can do it. My mom did it. I did it.
If these fucks take my dream away, I will kill them until I get it back.
I wish there was some way to explain this to them.
The laws, and those that enforce them are not here to protect me. Ain't shit going to happen to me and the men I associate with.
The police are here to protect you Antifa and BLM sjw cucks.
Be thankful that the police break down your doors and violently arrest you.
Because if it were up to men like me, I would gladly let you stay in your home while I burned it down with you inside.
Be thankful that we the people pay armed agents to snatch your rioting asses out of the street and throw you into vans.
If you break the down the rule of law and force men like me to enforce order, you will not be arrested and thrown in a van, you and all other rioters, terrorists, and communists will be shot in the street until order is restored.
And if leftists have any doubts, try me bitch.
Throwaway because I know how you lefty fucks are.
It's not about picking a woman for diversity. It's about picking a woman in order to short circuit the left and their media propaganda.
The Right doesn't care what race or gender the pick is, as long as it's the best pick. And the best pick might just be a brown woman because it will deflate any leftist narrative against it.