I suppose he should have gone on CNN or MSNBC where he was labelled a racist, white supremacist, terrorist, vigilante murderer, a guy running around attempting to murder black people... All this within 24 hours of the event happening and with little evidence.Fucking Bullshit.
Rittenhouse is cleared and then goes on Tucker Carlson.
****.
Yeah I don’t disagree. It’s mental (to me)Regardless of the trial outcome and whether you believe Rittenhouse to be guilty or not - the tragedy remains. Two people are dead because it's legal to carry assault rifles to emotionally charged, confrontational events such as the Kenosha protests. It's a miracle that others haven't been killed in similar circumstances (that I'm aware of) up until now.
The legality of carrying fire arms to protests stuck me as so self-evidently ill conceived that I wondered just how insane gun laws in Wisconsin are. For example, is it legal to carry assault rifles into a pub in Wisconsin? - Apparently it is not - so I guess there are (woefully inadequate) bounds on this insanity.
I feel safer being in a country where virtually no one has a gun, yeah.You feel safer in someone else’s hands?
I better register mine then...You only need a license for a concealed weapon
Great post. In the wider aspects of US law why did he go to a place where he was likely going to need to defend himself? He clearly planned on the real potential that he'd need to defend himself by taking not just a gun but an assault rifle so there is premeditation there.Regardless of the trial outcome and whether you believe Rittenhouse to be guilty or not - the tragedy remains. Two people are dead because it's legal to carry assault rifles to emotionally charged, confrontational events such as the Kenosha protests. It's a miracle that others haven't been killed in similar circumstances (that I'm aware of) up until now.
The legality of carrying fire arms to protests stuck me as so self-evidently ill conceived that I wondered just how insane gun laws in Wisconsin are. For example, is it legal to carry assault rifles into a pub in Wisconsin? - Apparently it is not - so I guess there are (woefully inadequate) bounds on this insanity.
Example?I have to say that I find the English system repugnant as such a huge percentage of the population is held hostage to a Chav culture that is so out of control with no recourse
It makes absolutely no sense of it helps.Example?
The lowest crime areas in the world do not have guns. Go to Singapore or the Nordic countries and they don't have guns but they do have low crime.I have to say that I find the English system repugnant as such a huge percentage of the population is held hostage to a Chav culture that is so out of control with no recourse
>> 1. Two people are not dead because it's legal to carry a rifle to emotionally charged confrontational events. They are dead because they acted poorly.Again, a lot of what you've said here seems reasonable in a vacuum. But it bellies a misunderstanding of reality.
1. Two people are not dead because it's legal to carry a rifle to emotionally charged confrontational events. They are dead because they acted poorly.
2. The notion that a legal ban on guns would have stopped people from having them is patently naive. I mean, the guy who got his bicep shot off coz he was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse, had that gun ILLEGALLY at the 'protests'. He and many others would have had their guns regardless of what the law was.
3. In short the law would have only stopped law abiding citizens from being able to arm themselves while allowing those who could care less about the law to have an upper hand.
4. I mean let's apply some basic common sense here, do we really think Wisconsin law allows for property destruction and business burnings during protests? Hopefully no one is naive enough to think it does.. Now ask yourself, how effective were those laws at stopping destruction, burning and looting?
My view has nothing to do with 2nd amendment absolutism. Again, just common sense prescriptions. If you are anti-business, and property destruction under the guise of protest and you want to protect against such, then you should come with a gun, coz you can be rest assured that those who come to coz mayhem in your City likely are coming armed too.
You feel safer in someone else’s hands?
Not initially but I’m getting a chubba the more I think about itWas that meant to be homoerotic?
Again, you seem to be of the view that I'm debating the 2nd amendment, I'm not. I'm just being true to what the facts are. In America, if their are riots, burnings and looting, and you decide to help stop it, you need to be armed coz those who intend to do such harm, generally are armed. Those are just the facts. What should be is an academic discussion. What is, on the other hand, is what I'm focused on.It’s only common sense if you see the world through the idealogy of individualism.
None of this is relevant to what I said. I'm simply addressing the realities on the ground. Not the intellectual discussion of the 2nd Am.Your right to own a gun makes it easier for the "bad guy" to own or possess a gun (through legal or illegal means). And soft gun laws make it easy for people to build up huge arsenals of powerful weapons and carry out mass shootings.
For starters, it's NOT a protest. By nightfall the protest and marching in and speeches have long ended. What we have are looters, property destroyers and burnings and people milling around witnessing or documenting the event.Having guns at protests in the possession of anyone other than law enforcement on duty makes serious violence more likely.
>> 1. Two people are not dead because it's legal to carry a rifle to emotionally charged confrontational events. They are dead because they acted poorly.
Individuals act poorly during protests - emotions flare. Take away guns, and we have two less shooting deaths. You might argue that a death or two might have resulted anyway even in the absence of guns - and I'd agree. Except that deaths would be far, far less likely.
No, Rittenhouse is actually law abiding. Grotkruez who pointed a pistol at him at one point was in possession of it illegally. Which is my point. Those who don't follow the law will be armed. A law that says you can't carry a gun, generally only affects law abiding citizens.>> 2. The notion that a legal ban on guns would have stopped people from having them is patently naive.
So I'll bite. You think that Rittenhouse would have been openly armed with an assault rifle were it illegal to own such a weapon?
Again, I bring your attention to Groukruez (sp) was in illegal possession of his conceal pistol.>> 3. In short the law would have only stopped law abiding citizens from being able to arm themselves while allowing those who could care less about the law to have an upper hand.
Huh? It looks to me, instead, that - barring an underage infraction - Rittenhouse was allowed to carry. As was the guy who discharged his pistol into the air in front of Rittenhouse.
Again, this intellectual discussion is only interesting from a distance. There were 4 people killed in different Cities trying to protect their property or their community. 2 were shot ,( by looters and Rioters), one was bludgeoned with an object went into a comma and later died. The 4th was a looter who had ganged up with 4 others to pile on an owner outside his restaurant. After being whaled on, he pulled out a gun and shot one off his back from the ground. The restauranteur would have simply been another unarmed victim of a mob. While you and other intellectuals in far away lands debate the efficacy and intricacies of a 'gun-less protest.'>> 4. I mean let's apply some basic common sense here
Let's indeed apply common sense here. Suppose that a different scenario unfolded.
Rittenhouse is guarding some property. And here come some out-of-control protesters who now start to vandalize cars and indeed begin to set fire to nearby buildings. Law abiding Rittenhouse... what does he do? I think he's perfectly within his rights to brandish his weapon.
But I'm pretty damn sure that he doesn't have the right to shoot the vandals, even in Wisconsin. If Rittenhouse abides by the law, then his armed-but-unable-to-shoot presence is not much of a deterrent.
Unless, of course, you advocate for a change of law - making it legal for armed citizens to discharge their assault rifles against perceived vandals.
===
Insane.
That's all well and good. But absent a law breaking rioter shooting a gun and another chasing down and lunging at someone with a gun, it would have been a death free night. Perhaps we should spend just a tad more energy on those who break the law 'AS IS' that's my point.I personally think that assault rifles should be banned and that high capacity cartridges should be outlawed. Failing that - and I'm against this as well - such weapons should be permissible only in households for defense of homestead and perhaps for enjoyment in carefully controlled shooting ranges.
Again, Fox in a Hole made similar arguments to this. You both seem to be of the impression that this is a 2ns amendment discussion. It really isn't.The infatuation with carrying such dangerous weapons around with almost nary a restriction is simply going to lead to more shootings.
===
OK, OK - I get it. You've a right to carry an AK-47 to a protest - or into Congress or other forums for government conduct.
But why stop there? Isn't a grenade an even more effective weapon. Why aren't grenades allowed?
What about chemical weapons? Sarin gas is pretty effective - and works against a mass of attackers. Shouldn't sarin gas be allowed? With proper personal protection, a judicious deployment of sarin is sure to offer even better protection against attackers than assault rifles.
And so on...
Insane.
1) legally not murders, officially.
2) one did fire a shot
3) another admitted on the stand that “Rittenhouse did not shoot me until I pointed my gun at him”
No worries. Look, the bloke’s a ****, the laws are mental but with the laws as they are, it was only going one way.Yeah, I get all that. The thing I don’t get is treating this as a set of events within the protest itself - ‘Shot fired, shot returned etc’ - but ignoring Rittenhouse deliberately inserting himself into this drama which then leads to two deaths. It’s akin to the actions of an agent provocateur, the role of stirring up trouble and then absenting themselves from the consequences.
The framing of the action, the trial feels wrong to me. But at the end of the day, that’s just my take.
Apologies for delay in replying.
Again, you seem to be of the view that I'm debating the 2nd amendment, I'm not. I'm just being true to what the facts are. In America, if their are riots, burnings and looting, and you decide to help stop it, you need to be armed coz those who intend to do such harm, generally are armed. Those are just the facts. What should be is an academic discussion. What is, on the other hand, is what I'm focused on.
None of this is relevant to what I said. I'm simply addressing the realities on the ground. Not the intellectual discussion of the 2nd Am.
For starters, it's NOT a protest. By nightfall the protest and marching in and speeches have long ended. What we have are looters, property destroyers and burnings and people milling around witnessing or documenting the event.
It's not like there is a secluded area for the protest. The mob ( and that's what it often is) just goes wherever it pleases and wherever there is a soft target and coz mayhem.
Again, when I say you guys are not thinking about the realities on the ground, this is what I mean.
Again, I'll repeat, property burning are against the law at ALL TIMES, even during protests... How observant of that law were the rioters?
There has been an argument to remove guns from the Police in the US but they just can't do it because the bad guys won't do it... The rest of the population who wants to own a gun won't do it either and then some minority of that population goes on to become a bad guy anyway.... It's just a classic Mexican standoff.Adding to my post above.... regarding the obvious inadvisability that guns should be allowed into emotionally charged encounters, except when absolutely necessary...
In England, most police are not routinely armed - for this very reason. Which is to say, officers of the law, extensively trained in conflict de-escalation are nonetheless typically unarmed to prevent deaths caused by avoidable shooting.
What a sensible idea!
PoofsThere has been an argument to remove guns from the Police in the US but they just can't do it because the bad guys won't do it... The rest of the population who wants to own a gun won't do it either and then some minority of that population goes on to become a bad guy anyway.... It's just a classic Mexican standoff.
The biggest stain on guns in the US is not just how many are killed but also how many are injured, the number of events involving guns is just staggering. Over 300 people per day are shot by a gun in the US, most survive but many don't.
There have been less gun incidents in the UK over the last year than in 1 day over there....