Read what I wrote.Shots fired...... Let's do this.
Show me where Kyle Rittenhouse was legally in the wrong?
It's madness because you don't like it.
To me it was self defence under the laws of that country.
But hey if you want to get all hysterical and emotional with no legal basis go for it.
Rittenhouse was 17 almost 18. Now I could list Pakistan, middle East and African Nations or point out that NZ had these guns up to a few years ago and are in fact in the top 20 most armed countries.Read what I wrote.
I said that's what the statute allows.
I also said that it was dystopian, and you have no other countries that suggest otherwise.
Simple bottom line is that as most countries don't allow teenagers to openly carry automatic weapons in public, and the fact that it's lawful in some US States just goes to show how bereft of common sense they are.
You are the one who is hysterical.
This is one of the worst articles I've seen. Complete BS. Let's get something straight about the prosecution. They used every dirty trick and bordered on the case being thrown out because of it.This is the sort of incendiary BS being circulated by some of the leftist MSM.
Absolute BS in that their laws do not allow young people to carry automatic weapons in public. That's the stupidity that you have avoided in every response so far.Rittenhouse was 17 almost 18. Now I could list Pakistan, middle East and African Nations or point out that NZ had these guns up to a few years ago and are in fact in the top 20 most armed countries.
Not relevant.But let's step away from that. Lets say that every country that has maintained an army and sent their troops into combat. Have in fact sent young men and women into foreign countries heavily armed and of similar age in public.
BS. That's a legacy of failed Trump policy.Biden has recently armed hundreds of 13-17 year olds in Afghanistan with heavy US arms.
All I have done is pointed out the stupidity that allows the situation to occur.I'm not the one getting hysterical over self defence.
I stated numerous times that State statute allowed Rittenhouse to do what he did.The fact is, @moXJO is correct on each and every point he has made above. It was indeed self-defense and according to the justice system has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
How is it not relevant.Absolute BS in that their laws do not allow young people to carry automatic weapons in public. That's the stupidity that you have avoided in every response so far.
Not relevant.
This article is stupidity. People went to a town, were rioting and trying to burn buildings. Chased a kid who in turn used his right to self defence. No one should have been there, but they were. Both groups had guns. Kyle was not the first to shoot.Absolute BS in that their laws do not allow young people to carry automatic weapons in public. That's the stupidity that you have avoided in every response so far.
Not relevant.
BS. That's a legacy of failed Trump policy.
All I have done is pointed out the stupidity that allows the situation to occur.
And the Guardian article above is accurate:
"The most worrying effect of this verdict may be this: giving rightwing - or any - vigilantes a legal precedent to take up arms against anyone they consider a threat – which pretty much runs from anti-fascists to so-called Rinos (Republicans in Name Only) and includes almost all people of - any - color – means it is now open hunting season on progressive - or any - protesters."
I added any to the above because anyone, anywhere, in America has the precedent to fall back on.
As the say, "only in America".
You have consistently avoided the key issue.This article is stupidity. People went to a town, were rioting and trying to burn buildings. Chased a kid who in turn used his right to self defence. No one should have been there, but they were. Both groups had guns. Kyle was not the first to shoot.
It wasn’t an automatic weapon. Perhaps read up a bit then present that question again.You have consistently avoided the key issue.
Stupid laws have given rise to a gun culture that allows teenagers to roam the streets with automatic weapons, and provide a defence to the person who does this and kills others on the pretext they opined they feared for their personal safety.
If it were not so serious it would be laughable.
I am not presenting an argument (so your use of the term "sophistry" is a nonsense), but have been making a point about the stupidity of American laws that lead to the proliferation of a gun culture.@rederob clearly has not viewed the evidence, nor the footage and is practising a form of uninformed sophistry.
Rittenhouse would not have had to defend himself, if he was not carrying a semi-automatic rifle acting like he was some kind of Rambo character.Self defence was on trial.
The rest doesn't mater.
Semi automatics can be legally modified with bump stock in America to fire almost as rapidly as automatics, so your point is somewhat semantic. Here's a guy openly carrying an AK-47 that shoots up to 600 rounds a minute:It wasn’t an automatic weapon. Perhaps read up a bit then present that question again.
True, so show where else in the world it's legal for private citizens to lawfully carry military standard assault weapons in public. Your examples of ownership are not relevant, nor were your examples of soldiers who, unsurprisingly have this right.If you choose to lead with violence then you suffer the consequences of your stupidity.
How is that relevant to the facts of the matter at hand? ie the Rittenhouse acqittal and the ludicrous reaction from the left... well I guess you are helping to illustrate my point.Semi automatics can be legally modified with bump stock in America to fire almost as rapidly as automatics, so your point is somewhat semantic. Here's a guy openly carrying an AK-47 that shoots up to 600 rounds a minute:
View attachment 133181
True, so show where else in the world it's legal for private citizens to lawfully carry military standard assault weapons in public. Your examples of ownership are not relevant, nor were your examples of soldiers who, unsurprisingly have this right.
Look what he was using before shoving sleight of hands down peoples throats.Semi automatics can be legally modified with bump stock in America to fire almost as rapidly as automatics, so your point is somewhat semantic. Here's a guy openly carrying an AK-47 that shoots up to 600 rounds a minute:
View attachment 133181
True, so show where else in the world it's legal for private citizens to lawfully carry military standard assault weapons in public. Your examples of ownership are not relevant, nor were your examples of soldiers who, unsurprisingly have this right.
Pakistan you can pick up grenade launches. Israel has heavy weapons but tight conditions. Swiss use military rifles for target shooting. Africa, Middle East, NZ had ar-15 up till a few years agoView attachment 133181True, so show where else in the world it's legal for private citizens to lawfully carry military standard assault weapons in public. Your examples of ownership are not relevant, nor were your examples of soldiers who, unsurprisingly have this right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?