You cited the statute but didn't take exception 3(c) into consideration as I advised you to. Legislative efforts attempted to add an exception (3d). That exception would have made the hunting requirement to include 16 & 17 yo. That was a direct response to the Rittenhouse trial.
Irrelevant
It's very relevant to your statement. "Im the one that cited the exact statute and the original intent of the statue as verified by said writers." You may have cited the correct statute but you failed to properly interpret it despite my guidance. You kept insisting on a hunting requirement.
What happened after the trial is irrelevant. It just means wisconsin has republican leaders, who value guns over lives.
That's an odd way of admitting that you were wrong. 🤔
How is republican controlled legislature who decided they didnt want to enshrine the original intent into law AFTER the trial, me being wrong. Even odder way to say you are right.
The legislative body decided not to add the exception. They chose to keep the statute as originally written.