Kyle Rittenhouse Case Unlikely To Bring Tighter Gun Laws
Restrictions have little chance of moving beyond political theater, or of winning compliance if passed.

Gun laws hit the headlines once again with the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges for defending himself against assailants during a 2020 riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A peek at the tea leaves suggests it's highly unlikely that gun-banners will get mileage out of the high-profile case. While tightening firearms laws remains a popular cause among Democrats, Americans as a whole are more negative than ever about the idea. Policy ideas confined to a partisan fetish have little chance of passage in a closely divided country, and even less of winning compliance even if they become law.
"Americans' support for stricter gun control has fallen five percentage points to 52%, the lowest reading since 2014," Gallup reported last week before the verdict came down. The high point in support for stricter laws was 1990. Since then, opinions have wandered a bit, but generally trended downward.
Over that time, though, the issue has become increasingly partisan, with soaring support for tighter laws among Democrats, declining support among Republicans, and independents caught in the middle, but losing their taste for restrictions. Since 2001, Democratic support for stricter laws grew from 61 percent to 91 percent, while Republican support dropped from 44 percent to 24 percent. Independent support for more restrictions went from 55 percent in 2001 to a high of 64 percent in 2019 before a plunge to 45 percent.
As a result, tougher gun control remains an unassailable position among Democratic politicians, but one with diminishing appeal outside the ranks of the faithful.
The Rittenhouse verdict is unlikely to budge the numbers since reactions break down along similar partisan divides. Democrats compete to condemn the outcome as racist and an indictment of the American system of justice, while Republican officials joke about arm-wrestling over who gets to hire Rittenhouse as an intern. He can't be just a guy; he's a hero or a villain depending on your party.
"I am deeply concerned that it will encourage more tragic gun violence from those like Kyle Rittenhouse who think they have a license to take the law into their own hands in a violent way," huffed Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) who also called for "common sense gun safety reforms."
"Never surrender your Second Amendment right to defend yourself and your family," responded Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) to the verdict.
In today's tribal political environment, the reactions were right on-schedule and predictable along party lines. They're not going to budge public opinion one way or another, though they serve as attaboys to loyal supporters whose opinions on the issues can pretty safely be assumed.
What might budge opinions is the shared need for self-defense across the population without regard to partisan affiliation, race, or any other identifier. Contrary to much progressive insistence that the use of self-defense is an expression of white privilege, it's a necessity for people from all walks of life. On the same day as the Rittenhouse verdict, a jury in Florida came to a similar conclusion about the actions of Andrew Coffee, who defended himself against assailants who killed his girlfriend.
"VERO BEACH – A Gifford man who claimed he was defending himself and his girlfriend when he fired shots at deputies during an early-morning raid in 2017 was acquitted Friday of charges that carried a life prison term," reported Treasure Coast Newspapers. "A jury found Andrew 'A.J.' Coffee IV, 27, not guilty of second-degree felony murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer by discharging a firearm and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile."
Coffee, who is black, fired back at police officers who engaged in a no-knock raid without clearly identifying themselves. Unfortunately, he still faces sentencing as a felon in possession of the firearm he used in his defense, since the law continues to deny full rights to those who have served their time.
Coffee isn't alone as an American who defies the stereotype of conservative white gun owners. Growing skepticism about law enforcement along with the failure of police forces to keep the peace in some communities last year (see the Rittenhouse case) have people worried about their security. That hasn't exactly driven the majority into the arms of the defund the police movement, but it motivated a surge in people purchasing firearms for self-defense.
"The highest overall firearm sales increase comes from Black men and women who show a 58.2 percent increase in purchases during the first six months of 2020 versus the same period last year," the National Shooting Sports Foundation noted in July 2020.
"First-time gun buyers favor Biden over Trump," the Dallas Morning News reported of pre-election Texas survey results. "In fact, 51% of first-time purchasers surveyed favored Biden, while 43% favored Trump."
That matters because Republicans are not just more likely to oppose tighter gun laws, but "about twice as likely as Democrats" to own guns according to Pew Research. Gun owners of all partisan affiliations, logically enough, are much less sympathetic to gun restrictions than are non-owners, as found in August by Pew. That may not yet be showing up in Gallup's figures, but it seems likely that increased ownership will further erode support for gun restrictions, even among Democrats.
Specific restrictive policies are also losing support among Americans.
"Support for banning citizens' ownership of handguns peaked at 60%" in 1959, Gallup observes about opinions of the sort of weapon Coffee used to defend himself. "Today's 19% favoring such a ban is the all-time low, and down six points in the past year."
Pew's August survey found declines in support for bans on the "assault-style" weapon of the sort carried by Rittenhouse among Republican gun owners and non-owners alike, stable opinions among Democratic gun owners, and modest increase in support only among Democrats who don't own guns.
Importantly, given the partisan divide on the gun issue, the raw hatred between the political tribes in modern America, and passions over firearms ownership, it's impossible to imagine that ramming gun restrictions through Congress would accomplish much. Individuals who oppose such laws would ignore them. Localities controlled by self-defense supporters (Second Amendment Sanctuaries) would refuse to enforce them. The result would be yet more political chaos.
Gun ownership remains a battleground for Republicans and Democrats but, really, it's just theater. Declining support for restrictions, growing and diversifying gun ownership, and wide demand for the tools of self-defense almost certainly doom the dreams of prohibitionists.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
FJB. Let's go Brandon. And just bought another gun this weekend for my kid.
Did you know every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk?
#Killingyourself
#Buryingyourchild
Have you noticed that every one of those studies has a bias against guns?
Its a parody
He hadn't noticed.
With the “research” done today, and the Poe's law, How the hell can you tell at first sight when it a “legitimate” study or “The Onion”/ Analog. Spending the five minutes to find out out if it’s a liar or a gadfly often seems like a waste of time.
In fairness, it's often not a very good one. Poe's Law applies.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.BCd Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here.........VISIT HERE
Attacking Kyle Rittenhouse is akin to suicide with a 50% chance of occurrence and a 25% chance of non-deadly injuries.
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............Pays24
Impostor alert!
If anyone sees a comment allegedly written by me, but it doesn't sound quite right, just click Reply to confirm it's the impostor. The all-caps REPLY TO OPENBORDERSLIBERAI-TARIAN (note the "i" before the dash) is the giveaway.
#PrettyObvious
LOL
Also the impostor was too lazy to make the username linkable. 🙂
Peak Dalmia.
Was Dalmia a parody writer? It would explain a lot.
She works for OBL now. Submits her pablum straight up and then he just puts it out there for a laugh.
A parparodyody!
Shits getting cray cray.
The sad part is the parody is so spot on i couldn't tell.
Could be the same troll as imposter buttplug.
It's probably Buttplug revenging.
Sock puppets come in pairs
Sadly transgender suicide risk is still the highest risk in the country. Why can't they all cross the border and be given 450k?
They would be given fake bills.
Lulz
In a trans-scarcity economy, "Washingtons" and "Benjamins" *is* deadnaming.
My Washingtons identify as Franklins when I turn them in at the bank.
My Washingtonians identity as Salmon P. Chases when I turn them in at the bank.
We need more firearms training for transgenders.
Yes, especially in light of Tony’s dire warnings that “people will die” because Dave chappelle gave “violent bigots” “permission” to murder trannies. It’s chilling.
Strangely, still no update from tony on the death toll since then. I hope he’s ok.
Well, he did, but far more interesting to me is what your project is by defending him. What do you want to do trans people?
Funny, it’s faggots like you that have historically been the nastiest towards trannies.
Oddly, for me this comment was muted as a Lord of Strazzle comment. Seems like a fake OBL?
But the solution to this is obviously to add new laws: make it punishable by a death penalty to use or attempt to use a firearm in a suicide. That should stop that nonsense.
Except for sir strudel himself. He’s still welcome to use a firearm to commit suicide.
I encourage all marxists to end their own lives. If this happened the 20th century, over a hundred million people would have been spared.
Noticed the same; muted comment was id'd as Strudel, but trying to be a spoof on OBL. Rather sad, actually. But not enough to feel sorry for a person, the best part of whom was the stain his father left on his mother's mattress.
Ah, so Sullum is trying his hand at parody?
I am taking in substantial income 2000$ online from my PC. A month ago EI GOT check of almost $31k, this online work is basic and direct, don’t need to go HAZ OFFICE, Its home online activity.
For More Information Visit This Site………… Visit Here
I wrote this last year on Quora in response to guns and suicide. Still appropos:
—————
Ok folks...as someone who works with and treats depression.....and who used to live with a depressed, suicidal person.... pro 2A guys....you know my prior posts and comments.
In this case I disagree, sort of...
Folks who are that depressed contemplate suicide as a means of ending their emotional pain.
Having a gun in the home does not increase the risk of suicide.
Need I repeat that?
The fact there is a gun in the house does not add to that sense of hopelessness or the risk of suicide.
The lead-in to the Trace’s article should read "increases the risk of completed suicide" ....
We know suicide attempt by gun is more "successful" than other methods. That’s proven.
So the seeming solution would be.... Get guns out of the house or lock them up... In a safe preferably. I vote for getting them out of the house if someone in the household suffers from depressed.
Unfortunately, many family members are not aware of the depth of depression in their loved ones. How close to the edge their loved one is until there is an admission of those thoughts, or a suicide gesture (half-hearted attempt)....or a completed attempt.
HIPAA rules prevent health care providers from divulging information to families unless there is an imminent threat to the patient or someone else. But how many people actually see a psychiatrist? Few, and there is a shortage of mental health professionals. So it falls to the family doctor... Pediatrician, internist, GYN, family practice... The Primary Care specialties. Having worked in those areas.... I can tell you it is tough to screen for depression, let alone anticipate suicide. And relatively few depressives are suicidal.
Yes, kids will impulsively make a suicide attempt.
Yes, if there is a gun available, they will use it with an 80% completion rate.
If there is no gun available, they may try other means...pills, hanging, crashing the car..... with a good probability of surviving.
So what is the solution? Know your kids. Limit and Monitor their internet activity. Stay involved in their lives. Get your noses out of your device, away from the TV.... sit and talk to them. Lock up your guns. If there is any hint of depression/suicide...get them out of the house. Need one for self defense? It should always, always be in your direct control. Not stuffed in a drawer, under a stack of towel in your closet. Direct control or in a biometric Safe.
Just my opinion. Agree or disagree.
Be civil with your comments please.... including you so-called “progressive’s” who are long on name calling and short on even a modicum of intelligent discussion.
So you are saying that a person should have no right to determine the end of their own life if they are in misery?
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company FEq now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
Morphine was the preferred method for suicide victims until Teedy Rosenfeld decided that additional at-gunpoint prohibitionism would expiate his family's sins. Since 1900, police have been expected to make a business of shooting anyone copping a buzz, irrespective of any suicidal intent.
Needs moar God’s Own Prohibition Party!
HELL YEAH!!!!
get gunned up. Troubles coming.
Us all being armed is the ONLY reason that a totalitarian takeover hasnt been attempted here.
Theyre trying stealth first.
The Bundy Ranch incident was first proof and the Feds lost.
Fuck Biden.Dont fuck Harris for any price...( youre too late to that train wreck)
Uh... have a look in the mirror. You are part of the "totalitarian takeover." You're the baddie. You're the "troubles" that's coming.
Kyle delivered.
Me, I just lay in wait.
Feel free to use this on your own person or property or anywhere you have explicit permission of the owners. It's not vigilantism on your part if your aggressor has to come to you.
Maybe if everyone uses this message, the deranged Woke Mob will be so diffused and scattered and exhausted from wild goose chasing as to be ineffective.
Then the Culture War will end, not with a bang, but a mass, sobbing, thumb-sucking hoard crouched in a fetal position under a mound of Hot Pocket boxes in the basements of mothers everywhere!
From a meme:
Rittenhouse gets cleared of all charges. Judge yells out from behind,
“Hey kid, you forgot this…”
Tosses him his AR15. Credits roll, Eye of the Tiger plays.
I lol'd
Did you know he crossed state lines? It's very relevant to the case that he crossed state lines. If we cannot get common sense gun safety laws passed, we should at least restrict crossing state lines.
#StateLinesAreSacred
#(NationalBordersNotSoMuch)
Hey, OPEN Borders, wouldn't restricting crossing state lines be CLOSED borders?
Oh, never mind, it's for the children!
You haven't listened to obls spot on analysis, borders are only meaningless when it's foreign workers coming to the US. State boarders are essential to to keep the right people in the right places
Excellent point. I withdraw my comment.
We need border guards at every highway that crosses a state border. TSA would love it! And think of the jobs created !!!
Border guards would crush the Northern Delaware liquor stores!
Hey, OPEN Borders, wouldn't restricting crossing state lines be CLOSED borders?
Wouldn't open borders mean American gun and property ownership laws apply to Americans on foreign soil?
Oh, never mind, it's for the children!
Oh, right, The Narrative. My bad. Go Narrative!
Of course they mean that. But Americans are barred from going to other countries because we're all racists and imperialist and would cause harm by our mere presence! Unlike the descendants is the Spanish empire or the Chinese empire, who were always peaceful, tolerant, and welcoming of cultural differences! Other countries are safe spaces that Americans are not allowed to disturb!
You forgot the Aztecs and Mayans (early adopters of Resistance is Futile, in a heartless way), along with almost all other indigenous American tribes. Almost all referred to themselves as the People. Others, not so much.
I honestly think it's amusing how most tribes came to be known by white people by the names their enemies gave them.
Partly this was because explorers would generally first learn about a particular tribe from other tribes closer to them, and most neighboring tribes were enemies at least part of the time. They would learn the enemy tribes' name for a particular tribe first.
Also, most tribes just called themselves "people" in their own language. Usually several other tribes spoke a quite similar language, with the same word for themselves, so learning that word would not identify the tribe. It was other (mostly enemy) tribes that needed to invent a unique name for any particular tribes.
That would be 'expanded borders'. Open borders mean your laws don't apply to people coming in.
If you take 'property' to mean 'land', yes. If you take property to mean 'their person or effects', no. Or at least, "not exactly". When asylum seekers come to this country and enjoy legal protections, it's not regarded as border expansion/contraction.
Once you are in the US the government will decide where you go
We need common sense state line control!
But what about people
illegallyundocumentedally crossing national boundaries. Are they clear to cross state lines?Does New Mexico only have three sides? How about North Dakota?
Wandering minds come dangerously close to crossing lines, and need to know the proper boundaries.
"Did you know he crossed state lines?"
He did not carry a weapon across state lines, which is the only issue for crossing state lines in this situation.
And none of the people are at all talking about the gun laws Kyle's attacker was breaking
Of course not, the rioters were fully enforcing "our democracy" by which the speaker invariably means marxist control.
It was mostly peaceful incidents of arson until that white supremacist came in without marshmallows.
Well if you look at "The 45 Goals of the Communist Party" which if you look is the playbook of today's Democratic Party.
https://cultureshield.com/PDF/45_Goals.pdf
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and
special-interest groups should rise up and use ["] united force ["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
That's an interesting read, they have already accomplished the capture of schools (17) and media (21?)
March through the institutions is well known. Yet for some reason the luminaries who got jobs as editors seem to be ignorant of it. Likewise most of the liberaltarians here.
The age old question: Are the editors of Reason ignorant, or in on it?
Yes
+1
To Trumpenjugend brainwashees you're either helping to lick the blacking off of Trump's Bally shoes, or you're agin' Jesus: which will it be? The concept of striving to reduce the initiation of deadly force is by their lights Evil because it defeats more fascists than communists and threatens to divide The Kleptocracy. We had a lot of trouble hanging nazis while German crowds of similar mentality urged us to worship nationalsocialists in 1946-48.
It’s got nothing to do with Trump. Maybe skip a couple bong hits and keep up with the topic being discussed.
The progressives have been playing a long game of taking over institutions of western civilization one at a time. They’re on record expressing this. The writers at Reason APPEAR not to be aware of this.
Are they really unaware, or are they aware, and are covering/supporting it?
Hey, we will tell you what democracy means!
He wasn't even charged. But ziminski was to stop his testimony at trial.
Mr. Bye-cept?
You disarmed me with that one.
Muscling in on Chumby territory.
Not a single new law as long as Hunter Biden is not charged and convicted.
But he's one of the sophisticated people... making me glad to be a yokel.
And a very sensitive (and successful) artist.
Declining support for restrictions, growing and diversifying gun ownership, and wide demand for the tools of self-defense almost certainly doom the dreams of prohibitionists.
Doomed their dreams, again.
And again.
You want to prevent a Rittenhouse incident?
Don't allow mob rule. Simple as that. This push to castigate a kid for being on the side of not-burning-my-dads-town-down is farcical; if you don't initiate a threat people have no need to respond with any force, much less deadly.
He was acquitted for doing the right thing in the face of political failures and for defending himself against unprovoked aggression from the Burn Loot and Murder wing of BLM.
Gun rights are not the issue, tolerance of mayhem is.
The left has lies and the media on their side. They will double down.
The proggie narrative is that Rittenhouse has no reason to be there, that those two would still be alive if he had not showed up, but that the Burn Loot Murder squad had every right to be there Burning Looting and Murdering.
That's today's Leftie Logic Lesson.
I personally think none of the people involved should have been there, or should have brought weapons if they did. That is not the narrative you just described, but I’m not a proggy or lefty.
I haven’t seen anyone promote the exact narrative you say they have. I assume you can cite examples of progressives or lefties actually saying what you say they say. Could you provide such a cite here?
Note how he tries to defend the left but denies being part of it so he can avoid responsibility for their actions. Compare this to Title IX and other campus administrators claiming to protect people who suffer harm from people wearing costumes and other minutia.
This is from Propaganda 101.
The funnier thing is that if you found someone on the left saying exactly what he is asking for (and yes, he requires exact word for word matching), he would then ask you for ID or party affiliation proof to verify it was a lefty.
Meanwhile everyone who disagrees with him is a trump cultist.
Or he'd never respond, and he would ask for a cite on the next article this comes up. Seriously, if he were actually genuine in his posts, you'd have to conclude that Mike is incapable of forming long term memories, because he never retains information.
But he isn't genuine in his arguments. He is just trying to gum up comments with first grade trolling.
The best is how often he posts something without having read it first. And you use the actual post he made against him.
Fuck you and your begging for cites.
Nobody buys your bullshit here anymore Dee.
If you'd been actually paying attention here, you'd have read that narrative many times.
Maybe you mute sarcasmic -- not my problem.
Maybe you are lying -- not my problem.
Maybe you think I bookmark every stupid sarcasmic comment -- not my problem.
Maybe you haven't seen any mainstream media articles -- not my problem.
And other than all that, Kyle was there peacefully -- putting out fires, guarding property, possibly rendering first aid. The people he shot were not there peacefully. They were Burning Looting and Murdering, or at least trying to, but all three were thwarted by an honest peaceful citizen.
So fuck off with your "Kyle should not have been there". He was the only one doing what an honest citizen does.
Oh look out, White Mike is going to mute you now for not going along with his simpery.
Too bad Reason doesn't let us see who is muting us.
Too bad Reason doesn't require a ranking of muted people to be public for people using mutes.
Sarc refuses to put out his list since the Mute Bown by Beast Ice began.
Mute Bowl*
There should be rankings next to our names.
I have to admit that I'd be pretty high on the list. I tend to mute all the spambots. It works for a few days, anyway. As for actual commenters, or at least repeat socks and trolls, it's probably 2 dozen or so.
Exactly. I want sarc’s list!
The list, or it doesn’t exist!
We want the list, hey! We want the list, hey! We want the list, hey!
WHAT DO WE WANT?!
WE WANT THE LIST!
LET’s GO SARC’s LIST
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?!
Now!
Can you cite a commenter here who says exactly that narrative?
All I recall are commenters saying that neither the left or right wing yahoos with guns should have been hanging out at those riots. That is NOT the same as the one-sided, “guns and violence are OK for left wingers” you are saying they said.
Notice .ikes use of the word exactly.
The cops shouldn’t have been ordered to stand down. The rioters had no business rioting. People are tired of this bullshit and will defend themselves, as they should.
But we know you’re with the rioters.
“So fuck off with your ‘Kyle should not have been there’, He was the only one doing what an honest citizen does.”
Why are you purposely misrepresenting my position, which is that Kyle should not have been there AND the people he shot should not have been there, either.
Poor Dee.
No, your position is represented accurately. You’re just a liar, like Pedo Jeffy, amd the rest of the prog brigade.
Your position was that he went there looking for someone to shoot.
You were in the thread where sarcasmic produced exactly that narrative dummy.
And amazing how you went from day one guilt of Rittenhouse to now pretending you were always open to the trial. How can you be so full of crap?
He thinks we're as stupid as he is.
I personally think you should quit blaming the rape on the short skirt she was wearing.
And FOaD, asshole.
"I haven’t seen anyone promote the exact narrative you say they have. "
This is Mike doing his normal, "Cite?" thing. Mike actually doesn't care about real evidence or discussion. This is a volume game for him- he comes into comments and makes unsupported assertions, and demands for citations so that a) people get stuck responding to his low value posts and b) if they miss one of his late comments, they look like they were unwilling to back up their assertion.
This thread should understand that Mike doesn't want a discussion. He wants lurkers and passers-by to think that he just a reasonable commenter trying to make conversation, when in fact he is a concern troll. Next week he will ask for a cite on the SAME exact argument, because he isn't actually interested in discussion, just scoring troll points in this thread.
As an example:
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091773
That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.
Mike is QI personified. Unless there's been Supreme Court precedent for the exact same circumstances, it doesn't apply.
And you are chickening out on answering my question:
https://reason.com/2021/11/22/kyle-rittenhouse-case-unlikely-to-bring-tighter-gun-laws/?comments=true#comment-9224018
And White Mike's lying about his position.
He and Jeffy are so similar that I suspect they’re the same person.
They're not. chemjeff clearly lives in some blue-dominated neighborhood on one of the coasts, probably near DC. Mike lives in Meridian, Idaho (Mike, don't stupidly powerlevel and put your home city on your Quora page, dumbass. Talk to some of the military vets here about OPSEC).
I did not know that. One would think living in Idaho he wouldn’t be a leftist shitweasel. In any event, they’re both idiots.
Liarson, you're as progshit blue as they come.
Well Mike, not one "response" was anything but a personal insult, so I'll take that as they have nothing.
Yup.
There is a clear difference between:
a) Rittenhouse should not have been there with a gun, but it’s totally cool that leftist protestors were there with guns.
b) Rittenhouse should not have been there with a gun, and the leftist protestors shouldn’t have been there with their guns, either.
To not be able to see the difference between those two is stupidity. To see it, but pretend you don’t for the purposes of winning a debate in some Internet comment section is disingenuous. And an empty “win”, since you had to lie about the other person’s position just to win the argument.
And, as far as I know, nobody in this comments section has made argument (a). When I asked for a cite of someone making argument (a), as you said, nobody had anything.
We've told you exactly which threads to read. But above you retreated to "exact" words only like you are knowingly lying.
That’s all you see lioning trash deserve. Same with Pedo Jeffy. He would spam the same discredited arguments over and over. Even after said arguments were discredited dozens of times. Why dignify someone like that? Or like you?
Leftist trash like you and Mike aren’t worthy of respect or discussion. Indeed, the best advice I can give you is to start harming yourselves.
Best thing for you really, your comments are going nowhere.
Joe go look at the first Rittenhouse house thread dummy. Mike assured everyone he was guilty despite being given wiscinsin gun laws.
See sarc in the last Rittenhouse thread who thought it sucked Rittenhouse wasn't charged and shouldn't have been there.
You leftist sure to flock together in groups of liars.
Liar - this has been the primary narrative of the mass media asshats for a year.
Just pick a random URL from the internet to find your own citation.
Also, according to the leftists defending violent mobs, burning down a gas station is just property damage and magically limited to the property lines, with no chance of exploding the underground fuel tanks, burning any rioters nearby, or setting fire to occupied buildings.
How dare you! Get woke!
You must accept that speech* is violence, and violence** is speech.
*from the right
**from the left
Must be getting older, never saw the asterisks before. Makes sense now.
Skeptic was just saying the quiet part out loud.
When the state monopolized defense services and suddenly decides to stop providing those services, private defense will necessarily be unorganized and primitive. If the state continues to shirk its duties, eventually private defense will organize itself. But that's not what's likely to happen here, as the state will likely suppress any attempts of private defense to organize. The predictable result is chaos, and that may be what the state wants.
Honestly, I genuinely think it's uncoordinated horse-trading idiocy and a mindset that tomorrow is someone else's problem. At least with a conspiracy there's a head to remove, but how do you fix stupid?
Disagree. Most of what occurred in 2020, from Democrats locking down the economy and illegally changing election laws, to Democrats allowing political violence with little resistance or consequences, there was definitely planned coordination to achieve a specific goal. And that goal was achieved.
That’s not to say that many involved weren’t part of that coordination. Many were simply the useful idiots that bought into the narrative that Trump was an existential threat to our democracy and played their roles.
Antifa and BLM are the brownshirts, and there is evidence of communication between their leaders, left wing media (propaganda), and left wing prosecutors.
It wasn’t simply idiocy that Kyle was charged, and his attacker, who was a convicted felon illegally carrying a gun, wasn’t.
Correct
It was intentional, of course. Well said.
As evidence of this control, witness the lack of mostly-peaceful-yet-fiery-riots after the unanimous Rittenhouse acquittals.
If the DNC was not in power AND calling the shots, the leftist cities would be on fire again.
Yeah, if Wisconsin had more stringent gun laws, Rittenhouse could have took his beating as required by the rules Binger as Kraus promoted. Because "Everybody takes a beating sometimes right,..."?
I wonder how many innocent people Binger and Kraus have locked up?
We all learned this summer that teenage knife fights were common too.
Cultural norms.
They were in "Romeo and Juliet" which is probably performed a hundred times each year in schools around the nation.
As many as they could
Does that mean if someone jumped Binger for his lunch money and punched him repeatedly in the face, it would be OK?
Obviously the guy was a harship case who needed it more, so he should just take his beating.
This was a real humBinger of a trial. Never seen so much prosecutorial overreach and outright BS before.
The judge should have had them taken into custody for contempt, sent a written recommendation to the bar association to disbar the both of them, and taken necessary steps to have their cases reviewed for prosecutorial misconduct.
I wonder how many beatings they've taken.
Since 2001, Democratic support for stricter laws grew from 61 percent to 91 percent, while Republican support dropped from 44 percent to 24 percent.
That can't be right. sarcasmic swore it was both sides.
I also support stricter gun laws. Guns must be made available in every drug store, convenience store, big box store, and drive thru, and prices should be posted outside in a plainly visible manner. They should also be open 24/7 BY LAW.
At one point (after the Aurora, Colorado shooting, IIRC), I said right next to every "break glass in case of fire" case, there should be an appropriately equipped "break glass in case of attempted homicide" case.
Admittedly, I had never considered the larger concept of "assault fire extinguishers" when I made that suggestion.
Sounds suspicious. Where were you on January 6th, hmm?
Speaking as someone who went to high school in Aurora, putting any kind of loaded weapon anywhere within easy access of the average Aurora resident is basically begging for someone to get killed.
Then perhaps we should let Darwin win and let more Aurora residents die.
And then admitted this:
sarcasmic
November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.
The only shots scarc can handle, oh never mind too easy, like taking a shot next to a barrel that may be filled with fish
He would miss the fish apparently.
Shooting outside the barrel is as deadly as shooting into the barrel. Both sides.
Independent support for more restrictions went from 55 percent in 2001 to a high of 64 percent in 2019 before a plunge to 45 percent.
So right when Dem governments began openly supporting riots and violence for political purposes then? As soon as normals realize what left wing governance really means they reject it.
Spot on!!
Liberals have guaranteed gun rights for a generation with their constant ignorant blathering about "defund the police" - while American cities literally burned in the background during the "summer of love" and "mostly peaceful" riots. Rioters that sometimes turned violent and attacked random people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - who also, most often happened to be guilty of being white - while in the proximity of a BLM "peaceful protest".
You literally can't fix this kind of stupid mixed messaging. Democrats and their allies in the media shout and point to the utopian destination they desire, and then figuratively "shoot themselves in the foot" - and thank goodness for that!!
Progressivism is religion, and this is like a revival service. It's a big emotional reaction. The point of having a big emotional display is to keep people energized--at a time when their faith is being challenged.
The Democrats lost big in Virginia--and New Jersey, too. The Democrats will lose control of the House in 2022, and the massive Green New Deal and social welfare spending bill will probably make that bill worse.
The Democrats are being led by a largely diminished, unpopular old man, who probably won't seek reelection in 2024. Their plan B for 2024, Kamala Harris, is even more unpopular than Biden.
The Democrats will do anything right now to make it seem like their political future isn't as bleak as advertised. Manufactured outrage that an innocent kid wasn't convicted for the sake of appearances is all they've got.
P.S. I'm appalled at the news media reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict for blatantly calling for Rittenhouse to be convicted because of the message it sends.
Just to be clear, they don't care whether he's guilty. They want to convict Rittenhouse of a crime he didn't commit--to send a message! If that isn't bald-faced authoritarianism, what is?
For progressives, emotions >>> facts & logic.
Yeah, they're angry and upset, and that's the extent of their reasoning. The're "reasoning" is just a rationalization of their emotional state--and it's authoritarian. They want to convict innocent people to send a message.
I've seen a lot of commentators say that the verdict is racist. How many anti-Rittenhouse commentators have complained that the verdict was unjust? They wanted an injustice! They're upset and angry, and they want to use injustice to scare people.
This is another reason why progressives are America's most horrible people.
They convinced themselves that White rioters and arsonists are 'allies' of Black lives.
They want to send a message of unacceptability to Trump supporters and people who disagree with the progressive stance on everything--and that's why they want to convict Rittenhouse. It's better, in their minds, if they convict an innocent kid--because that would send a stronger message.
Just because you didn't do anything illegal, don't think the progressives aren't coming after you. Rittenhouse may have been innocent, but he wasn't clearly anti-racist, and that is unacceptable.
They are allies of BLM. Just slightly different branches of the same Party para-military.
BLM has done nothing to separate themselves or their brand from white rioters and arsonists. So they own it.
BLM amd antifa are domestic terror organizations, same as the DNC. All of them should be disbanded, with their principals and primary financial backers all taken into custody.
Sarcasmic unwittingly summed up leftie logic: those two would still be alive if Rittenhouse hadn't showed up, that he had no right to be there, so it's all on him, and he should have been found guilty. But the Burn Loot Murder squad? Of course, they had the right to be there, mostly peacefully assembling.
If the people who attacked Rittenhouse hadn't attacked him, they'd still be alive today.
I don't see any indication that Rittenhouse shot anyone who wasn't attacking him.
Everyone who didn't want to get shot because they were attacking Rittenhouse had an easy way to avoid it.
Just don't attack Rittenhouse.
Can you link to a comment where sarcasmic actually said that?
Yes. Are we going to? No. You ask for endless cites for things we all have seen here.
You’re a lying, sea lioning, concern troll shitweasel.
All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to sit and do nothing. Of course sarcasmic hates Rittenhouse. He took a stand.
Cite for sarcasmic saying something that indicates he hates Rittenhouse?
Let them keep at it. On Sunday an msnbc anchor called him a murdering white supremacist. Let them make Rittenhouse rich.
I don't think they can stop themselves from talking about it in terms of race--and that may be because they can't point to anything Rittenhouse did and call it illegal.
He crossed state lines!
That isn't illegal.
Then he's a racist--because what else do they got? They don't even contend that a crime was committed. All they've got to talk about is racism.
Correction. They think he should be guilty even if the law disagrees. Now they want federal charges. They just FEEL he should be in jail.
He didn't shoot any black people!
How will they justify federal civil rights charges when he didn't shoot any black people?!
When they brought federal civil rights charges against the cops who beat Rodney King (after acquittal), they did it on the basis of a charge that the police had violated Rodney King's civil rights--rather than assault and battery charges.
It's the same thing with the cop in the George Floyd case. The federal charges are about violating Floyd's civil rights because he was black.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the progressives try to do this without any justification but their emotional state, but the fact that Rittenhouse didn't shoot any black people should make it really hard to even getting him indicted for a federal civil rights charge.
Maybe one of those guys identified as black?
Actually, what will kill that is that Rittenhouse was not an agent or employee of the government. Note that all the federal civil rights charges you cited were brought against the police for actions in their official capacities. Bringing that case against a civilian is difficult to the point of practical impossibility.
My guess is look at a 1a violation and claim he was attacking people utilizing their free speech. Probably some law put in in the early 1900s for the southern democrats to stop intimidating people.
They're probably just talking out of their asses--like when they were accusing him of crossing state lines.
Anal speech is protected speech!
That explains why so much of what progs say is as welcome as a four day Taco Bell binge fart in a no stops 100 floor elevator ride.
Jesse. You left off a cite for Mike Liarson.
Yesterday's ABC, CBS and NBC left wing propaganda shows doubled down on their (and the Democrats) deceitful lies about white supremacy, gun control, domestic terrorism, socialism, deficit and tax hikes and inflation (in response to Rittenhouse's acquittal and House passage of Biden's "Build Socialism Better" bill).
I'm mystified that these lying media propagandists (along with Pelosi, Biden, Schumer and all House Dems but one) are doing everything they can to convince even more independents and Democrats to vote for Republicans next year.
They're either delusional or they really believe they're in charge of what we think.
They're talking to their audience, not to you.
They abhor self-sufficiency and independent thought. It interferes with their paradigm of big brother.
Absolutely spot on!!
The Democrats will do anything right now to make it seem like their political future isn't as bleak as disadvertised.
FIFY. Voting for Trump was an end to Republicanism and a fixation along the dead-end path of Trumpism. An end from which the GOP will never recover. Certainly not a model for anyone who wanted a relative political outsider, running openly on a platform of eroding government (but not social) institutions, to emulate.
Voting for Biden was the sustainable option.
Democrats have repeatedly claimed that the GOP is dead. I'm not a Trump supporter per se, but the rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated. Though I'm sure it represents much wishful thinking...
“Progressivism is religion, and this is like a revival service. It's a big emotional reaction. The point of having a big emotional display is to keep people energized--at a time when their faith is being challenged.”
And we can say the same thing of other political movements, no? Such as the MAGA movement.
Caw caw!
We can say you're full of shit.
FOaD, asshole.
Bowf sidez. Because you're totally not a lefty.
I remembered when you screamed whataboutism for a year when people brought up the BLM riots.
No, not really. This is in no way a ‘both sides’ situation. One side is a bunch of totalitarian communist nut jobs, and the other side is sick of their shit and wants to be left alone.
LMAO - aaah - no...
Meh...not gonna comply anyway.
There are two ways to cause people to obey your wishes. The first one is by reasoning them to your way of thinking, and the other is by force. If citizens are unarmed, there is no need to bother with the first.
They barely bother with it now.
Only gets worse when they disarm/criminalize the population.
Democrats - Ideas so good, they must be made mandatory!
A new gun law we all can get on board with would be the death penalty for any prosecutor convicted of pointing a firearm at a jury.
I was just summoned for jury duty. No matter what the case involves, I will be hostile to the prosecution.
I was dismissed from jury duty when they asked if I could be fair and impartial. I said no. The judge asked what I have against Mr Rodriguez. I said nothing, but I know the prococuter is a lier
If the prosecution points a gun at you, ask the bailiff to address it.
I would have gotten up and walked out. Too dangerous to be in the same room as the prosecutor.
The selling point of tighter gun laws is that they would enable to state to better protect us from the street thug and the gangbanger.
Except tighter gun laws do not apply to criminal thugs and gangbangers. Just like now, gun laws only apply to the law-abiding. As pointed out below, the dirtbag that plowed through the Christmas parade was out on bail although he had felony gun and assault charges pending. One of the guys Rittenhouse shot was illegally in possession of a pistol.
Stricter gun laws will not happen. That shipped sailed once law enforcement stood by and watched businesses burn and D.A.s released the looters and arsonists after either dismissing the charges or releasing them without bail.
Law abiding citizens are not giving up their firearms.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/officials-identify-person-of-interest-in-wisconsin-parade-rampage/
Brooks had only recently been released on bond stemming from a Nov. 5 case in Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County where he is charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless endangering safety, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery, according to online court records.
Come on now.
That does seem like the sort of thing they might not grant bail for. A second time.
They don't enforce them now, Michael. The piece of garbage who drove through the Waukesha parade, had previously caught a felon-in-possession charge. That---on paper---can put you in Federal prison for 8.5 years. If he's there, he can't be driving through a parade. "Accidentally", allegedly, but let's ignore his social media where he posted about how to drive through a crowd of people and get away with it. Guess he failed that part.
But is enforcing the multitude of firearms laws on the books what happens anymore? No. Why? Among other reasons, there was (successful) whining about its disparate impact on blacks. Cops'll be happy to jam up you or me on another similar charge though. And we'll get more bail than the 1,000 or so this 'bad driver' got for his latest crimes, before he decided to run over a bunch of white kids.
Disorder and chaos is the point. And using criminals as your low-ranking thugs and shock troops will have some unintended consequences.
Lefty Grosskreutz, the guy who was shot for pointing his previously concealed Glock handgun at Rittenhouse, was not charged for very obviously violating WI gun laws, by carrying a handgun concealed w/o a CCW permit. He likely would have been rejected, if he had applied, for bad character, so he never bothered to apply.
Ironically, gun laws are one of the few examples where systemic racism actually exists.
What other bill of rights rights do felons have to surrender? You're playing into their game on this....
Their right to vote, for one.
Violent felons should not get the right to carry firearms outside the home. They've proven incapable of functioning without violence in polite society. Frankly, they should still be in prison, but many civil libertarians are happy to carry water for those who think that Freddy Felon's right to a 10th second chance, outweigh your rights to live in a peaceful society.
I don't care if I'm playing their game by advocating for felon-in-possession laws. They are a fantastic way to incapacitate the proven violent. Further, get it through your head: they are going to push whatever restrictions they can on the law-abiding whether we agree with some of their methodology or not. We aren't arguing with reasonable people, for whom the logic, "Well, you're for it, so you shouldn't have a problem with this thing like it..." resonates. They're going to do it anyway.
But when the state stands aside, and it’s police are ordered not to do their job at protecting the people from thugs and criminals attacking them, then they lose the moral authority to demand that the citizenry not be armed, because they are protected by the state - because they aren’t.
Totalitarians don't give a shit about moral authority.
We have now an illegitimate federal government, and that's not going to stop them.
The State most often IS the street thug and organized criminal. That's the whole reason we have a Bill of Rights and other countries have fleeing ragged wretches. Most of their wretchedness is due to laws that make production and trade (not violence) a crime. The USA exports many such laws, and sends death squads into Colombia, Panama, Peru, Bolivia and elsewhere at will to suppress (get this!) plant leaves. Foreign bills of "rights" endorse collectivized looting, not individual rights.
The police are largely report takers. When you need protection from the street thug and the gangbanger - when seconds count - the police are minutes away.
So the guy who ran through a Christmas parade in Wisconsin had deferred felony charges for gun control, was not given bail for assault, and stabbed someone earlier that day.
But it is Rittenhouse we worry about.
"There's nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man"
Headline at CNN, Nov 21, 2021
In their defence the 3 guys Rittenhouse shot are all angry white men
As is Jeff Zucker.
And most of CNN’s talking heads.
White men can’t jump bullets. The one black guy that assaulted Rittenhouse escaped unscathed.
He was the smart one.
It was a result of him being more athletic due to centuries of ancestors being bred to work the fields better. - Jimmy The Greek
The article mentions Rittenhouse and offers a photo of him holding a gun (w/ the headline repeated above it) but does not mention the people that attacked him.
AP feed picked up by the Chron Saturday stated he'd shot 3 people, 2 of them dead. Not so much as a hint that all three were in self-defense.
If you got your 'news' from AP, it would be clear that a murderer was given a pass.
An extreme position (that I don’t agree with, by the way), but we should note it was the headline on an opinion piece, not a news article.
We should also note that those kinds of opinions are the ones CNN publishes, as opposed to the, say, "Rittenhouse being acquitted was the correct decision" opinions.
Good old Mike, making more excuses for the left.
Rittenhouse is the Richard Jewell of 2021.
We need reasonable and common-sense gun control laws, which is why I favor repealing the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill was sold as reasonable and common-sense gun control and it obviously didn't work because now the Democrats are demanding more. Let 8-year old kids buy sawed-off shotguns by mail order for all I care, there's no gun control laws the Left is ever going to be happy with and they're unwilling to compromise on the issue so fuck 'em.
20 years ago Democrats gaslit everyone by saying, "Nobody wants to take your guns, we just want common sense gun controls." Democrats have shifted to really wanting to do away with guns and nobody buys the "Common sense gun controls" spin anymore.
There have been a lot of new (state-level) gun restrictions added over the past 20 years. As a result, the demand for even stricter gun laws has diminished because a lot of people think they've already reached the level of "common sense gun controls," or else exceeded it. Gun grabbers got a brief boost off of the Vegas concert shooting and bump-stocks (which I remember reading that Paddock didn't actually use, but now I can't find that so it may be incorrect), but it hasn't really shifted the debate. Some people support a measure of gun control that they feel we've already reached and are not going to be in favor of any more strict measures.
Generally speaking, if you quiz anybody who says we need stricter gun control, you'll usually find that they have no idea how strict it already is.
All such attacks on the Bill of Rights are leading up to a repeat of what Tricky Dick the Republican did in May 1972: sign away American Constitutional rights, namely, the ability to destroy incoming nuclear weapons and prosecute entities making germ warfare attacks on These Sovereign States.
That nuclear attack against us in ‘73 was the worst.
Americans would rather see dead kids than give up guns. Nothing was done after Sandy Hook and nothing will be done.
"Nothing was done after Sandy Hook"
Good. Nothing is exactly what should have happened.
Americans would rather see dead kids than give up their cars. Nothing was done after the 2015 OSU tragedy and nothing will be done now.
Time for common-sense car control. Nobody needs an assault car.
Exactly! And now we have Waukesha.
Assault SUVs.
Law abiding citizens giving up guns will not stop criminals.
The three states with the lowest violent crime rates in America are all constitutional carry. All three happen to also be in New England.
Shitlord would rather make up lies than deal with reality.
FOaD, asshole.
Americans would rather see dead kid molesters. But then there's you.
More kids were killed by your BLM ally yesterday than by Rittenhouse, shitlib.
Maybe what we really need is common-sense shitlib control.
Helicopters or woodchippers?
Chip Back Better?
Wood chippers. Far more economic.
We used to have it, Red.
I think everyone who died was actually pretty old. Dunno what the ages are on the nearly 50 injuries, though.
New York and Connecticut passed a bunch of gun laws that most people predictably and rightly ignored.
Argumentum Ad Misercordiam (Appeal To Pity Fallacy.) Start again.
I would point out that self-defense laws are very lax. Had Anthony Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz, or another individual killed Kyle Rittenhouse that evening in Kenosha, they could as well have made a case for self-defense. So the gun may protect you, but it does come with some liablities.
"ad Anthony Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz, or another individual killed Kyle Rittenhouse that evening in Kenosha, they could as well have made a case for self-defense"
How? Was Rittenhouse burning down stores and attacking their defenders too?
I think they'd have a case, though a tougher one than Rittenhouse's, whose shouldn't even be controversial.
Honestly, had Grosskreutz shot Rittenhouse I would be against prosecuting him.
I still don't understand how Grosskreutz wasn't charged. Rittenhouse's self defense was plainly obvious, but Grosskreutz attempted a false surrender, which is treated as a war crime for soldiers. Weird how that didn't turn into demands for an investigation for attempted murder charges.
He should consider himself lucky that he only lost a bicep and not 20-40 years of his life.
Give him time. I’m sure he’ll find himself in prison for some other reason.
The attempt to say "If Kyle were a black man" combined with the failure to compare of Grosskreuz to Philando Castille or Harith Augustus lays bare the vile, disingenuous nature of those making the race argument. Especially in the context of "Kyle shouldn't have had a gun or crossed state lines."
OJ Simpson is a black man. How'd that trial turn out?
Which trial?
War crime laws are applicable in a street brawl in Wisconsin?
He wasn't charged because the Rittenhouse prosecutor didn't want the jury to know his best witness had a gun charge pending.
Absurd. GK's only basis to conclude RH was a risk was what other people told him. But he was a witness to RH's actual behavior which contradicted what he claimed to believe, that RH was an "active shooter". Therefore the conclusion RH was an active shooter was not reasonable, thus there was no justifiable reason to interfere with him at all.
Great work, Mr. Binger, but I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the (hypothetically) accused.
Had GG shot KR right after the latter killed Huber then I think there's a decent claim to self defense - anybody would be operating off hearsay and instinct in that situation.
Had GG shot KR right after the latter killed Huber then I think there's a decent claim to self defense
Witnessing an act of self-defense somehow proves other people are in danger? Absurd.
anybody would be operating off hearsay and instinct in that situation.
Which is exactly why it is not reasonable to conclude RH was an active shooter. GK witnessed RH only shooting at people attacking him. It doesn't matter what other characterizations he claims to hold, those characterizations were contradicted by reality GK certainly witnessed personally.
It's a pretty grotesque way to set aside the appropriate evidence and context.
Imagine police go on a no-knock raid, the victim of the raid wakes up, thinking he's being attacked, and shoots a cop. The cops kill him and claim self-defense? Even assuming the line was blurry, no, they initiated the raid that blurred the line between attack and self-defense.
Imagine a wife-beater hits his wife and she comes back with a gun. The kills her and claims self-defense? Even assuming the line was blurry, no, he was guilty of a crime that blurred the line between attack and self-defense.
I need more detail; how many times did Kyle beat the with his skateboard?
Were you confronted with a person armed with a gun would you not use anything you had to stop that person from shooting? Huber is dead and Rittenhouse is alive. If the situation was reversed Huber would be saying he did whatever was necessary to stop an active shooter. What prosecutor would would take a case where the defendent has a skateboard and the dead person had a gun?
He wasn’t an active shooter.
It's like he only knows the case from CNN talking-points instead of the actual testimony and video.
I'm an active shooter every time I go to the range. Somehow, everybody there manages to recognize that shooting actively is not a crime and summarily executing each other.
Huber is dead and Rittenhouse is alive. If the situation was reversed Huber would be saying he did whatever was necessary to stop an active shooter.
Well, sure he would, but that would be a lie. An active shooter is typically looking for a high score, not trying to deter and defend against his attackers.
And yurt wouldn’t matter if KR had been an Active Shooter. He wasn't, at the time he killed Huber and turned Grosskreutz into Lefty. KR was not, at that time threatening anyone. The legal requirement for self defense is a reasonable belief that the person claiming self defense posed an imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to another. Rittenhouse was running away, and they were chasing him. Whatever threat he might have posed earlier, he was not posing an IMMINENT threat at the time that he was attacked by Huber and Grosskreutz.
“Were you confronted with…..”
“Were you chasing after someone with…..”
Big difference mod.
"Rights are hard! Why can't someone just tell me what to do and think?"
- Madison Barbie
They could have tried but it would have failed. The self defense laws are not "lax" no matter what they tell you on MSNBC or Daily Kos.
If Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman, he may have had a reasonable case for self defense too.
What's your point?
Lots of people prefer rules to principles.
An interesting point that seems to get consistently missed in all of this; nobody has to die for a self-defense claim to be valid. "I wish Kyle had only eviscerated the the biceps of Huber, Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz." is a reasonable criticism on the principles.
Not very pragmatic to dictate how someone is able to defend themselves but at least, tries to conceptually strike a balance between self-defense and people dying.
Trayvon has safely retreated to his house, and then went back out to beat up a cracker.
Did he? I don't remember that detail. As I remember the case, he hid and waited for Z and then confronted him about why he was following him.
My point is, there was a fight, no one witnessed who started the fight, and there were conflicting eye witness statements on who was kicking whose ass when the gun was fired. It wouldn't be unreasonable for Martin to claim self defense once fhe fight started and it became apparent that Zimmerman had a gun.
Yes. See witness testimony from his friend on the phone.
No. There were no conflicting evidence about who was doing what. There were only conflicting narratives, but only one set of facts, and that was that Martin got to the porch at his father’s house, went back, ambushed Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, beat his head into the concrete walk, and tried to strangle him, when he cried out for help. Martin was shot while positioned sitting on top of Zimmerman, MMA style, leaning forward over him. There were offensive wounds on Martin, and defensive wounds on Zimmerman, but none the other way around. And, importantly, the only possible location for Martin when shot was seated on top of Zimmerman, leaning forward over him, based on the location and direction of the bullet’s trajectory. Key to that was that was the only way that the bullet hole in his hoody lined up with the entry wound, and wound trajectory on Martin. The hoody showed significant GSR stippling of a contact shot, much more GSR than around the wound on Martin, and all only consistent with the hoody having fallen forward from Martin’s body, caused by him leaning over Zimmerman when shot.
But keep believing in your contrafactual narratives. But don’t bother with the autopsy report, or the trial transcripts, because then you would learn what the facts really were.
More ridiculousness. None of Zimmerman's conduct - essentially watching Martin - could reasonably have put Martin in fear for his life.
There was a fight between the two. Zimmerman had a gun. There were no wintnesses to the fight except Zimmerman and Martin and Martin is dead so he can't testify whether he had a reasonable fear for his life.
Also, I believe Zimmerman's claim to self defense is also valid, because of the above reasons.
There was a fight between the two.
Passive tense is hiding who initiated the fight. There was no evidence Zimmerman initiated this fight.
Martin is dead so he can't testify whether he had a reasonable fear for his life.
But we are not, and we are the judges of reasonableness. Since Martin reached his home safely and Zimmerman never engaged in any aggressive behavior we can conclude that no matter what Martin claims it could not be judged reasonable.
And, forensics showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman, leaning forward over him, when shot. And they showed offensive wounds on Martin, but only defensive wounds on Zimmerman.
The bottom line from a legal standpoint is that no one could get past reasonable doubt. Which is why it’s another case that was only brought because of leftist political pressure.
I would like to point out that M4e is full of shit.
FOaD, asshole.
You can't attack someone running away dummy. Even cops get charged for that often.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/09/14/fired-woods-cross-police/
Nope. The laws are pretty tight. None of those three would likely have been found not guilty on the grounds of self defense, because all three lacked innocence, one of the requirements for self defense. Self defense is incompatible with being the aggressor in a confrontation. All three were the aggressors.
Again, I ask what prosecutor takes a case where the live person had no weapon, Rosenbaum or Huber and the dead kid had a AR15 type weapon?
Skateboards and pistols were weapons in this instance.
Rosenbaum had a chain and had set a dumpster on fire with *something*.
Regardless, the notion that a prosecutor wouldn't pursue charges against adults, felons, because the minor they assaulted and killed (in his hypothetical) was armed is laughably absurd. No to mention the even worse notion that just because someone is armed, they deserve whatever outcome of whatever assault comes their way.
None of those three would have been charged because they were on Binger's team.
Only a democrat would think that makes sense
They attacked him while he was fleeing, not because he was attacking them, or constituted a threat to them. Your poor takes on everything doesn't seem to come with liabilities.
"Coffee, who is black, fired back at police officers who engaged in a no-knock raid without clearly identifying themselves. "
You might want to do a few online searches - - - - -
The Deputies had already been in the house long enough to arrest his father, who was the actual subject of the warrant, based on two drug purchases. Neighbors had already called the house and warned the father that the house was surrounded and "they are coming in". Most witnesses say that the deputies had announced themselves. There is question about him being deafened by flash-bangs, but no claim of not identifying themselves.
I think the bigger point is, the Coffee case and the Arbery case both demostrate that the lefty talking point that the justice system is white supremacist and exists to persecute black people is absolute bullshit.
Of course it's bullshit.
Pernell Jefferson (black) killed Carl England (white), it was ruled "justifiable self-defense" in Oklahoma.
People who say the law isn't applied with the races reversed are (1) arguing from ideology rather than reality and (2) are provably wrong. Note also Jefferson was not rich so that's not the difference.
There are two differences between this case and the Rittenhouse case. (1) Rittenhouse fit the political narrative of the left-media and Jefferson didn't. (2) The Oklahoma prosecutors were committed to upholding the law while the Wisconsin prosecutors were committed to politics.
In response to questions about the decision-making in the April 5, 2010 shooting death of Jacob England’s father, Carl England:
The Tulsa County District Attorney’s office ruled the April 5, 2010 shooting death of Carl England justifiable homicide and declined to file homicide charges against Pernell Demond Jefferson. Jefferson was charged in that case with Attempted First Degree Burglary and Possession of a Firearm after Former Conviction of a Felony. He is facing a jury trial on these felony charges set on May 7, 2012.
https://www.krmg.com/events/outdoors--recreation/cycling/why-man-who-killed-suspects-father-wasn-charged-with-murder/w5Kl3nydqROJ8zRYhlcPEL/
Funny how you can still apply criminal charges and still grant a person their right to self-defense, even if he's not an evil huwhtye man.
Can we all focus on what's important?
Enb is out on maternity leave, the vox/Twitter based roundup is gone, and nobody misses it.
I thought you were going in a different direction. You know what's really important?
Won't somebody please think of the fuck Joe Biden?
Fuck Joe biden
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
...with the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges for defending himself against assailants during a 2020 riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
You can always tell a Tuccille article. For some reason he refuses to hold the line on the narrative just because video evidence and a jury trial suggests the contrary, and he refuses to believe that disarming the law abiding would improve safety, much less liberty.
It's his firm commitment to abandoning The Narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence that makes him exceptional among Reason contributors.
An internal Facebook report found that 90% of hate speech identified on its platform was against white people or men.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/22/facebook-hate-speech-white-people-men-joel-kaplan/
So much for the 24/7 narrative (by Democrats and left wing media propagandists) that white men are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech in America.
#BeLessWhite has a long way to go. Once white people stop acting “white,” there will be less need for hate speech against whites.
"Don't forget that these people want you broke, dead, your children raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny."
…that white men are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech in America.
If they didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be hate speech directed at them, now would there?
Not necessarily.
Leftism is thoroughly psychotic.
"So much for the 24/7 narrative (by Democrats and left wing media propagandists) that white men are responsible for the vast majority of hate speech in America."
Oh yeah? Well...uhh...Facebook was made by some white guys, so it IS white men that are responsible for all that hate speech. Check and mate. /s
I'd like to know the context for the photo.
They were a prop (note the safety flags) 'defending' the Re-Imagine Kenosha rally. I mean seriously, I count about twice as many cameras as guns (and zero dumpster fires) in this photo.
It looks like her mag is loaded.
I said they were props. I didn't say the producer wasn't also doing double-duty as prop manager. The ranges I've been at and the safety procedures I've seen, the safety flags go in when the gun gets locked up and get removed when the gun comes out. The only reason to be walking around with a safety flag in, especially with a loaded magazine, is purely cosmetic. IMO, it demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the user. It may be a simple misunderstanding but, still, it doesn't truly indicate that the gun is not loaded (as it should) and it doesn't enhance the safe operation of a loaded gun.
Here's the article with the photo I linked. It's somewhat difficult to piece together the photos along the timeline but, the guns go back and forth from unloaded with safety flags, loaded with safety flags, and loaded without safety flags.
I said they were props.
I also more than half meant the "Older black man and strong black woman carrying guns." were props, not the guns themselves. They weren't actually there to defend anything. They were there to get photos and clicks of a black girl carrying a gun.
It should have been a black man with a 20” barrel gun and a white guy toting an sbr.
You left out the teenage-ish girl with a plastic 'gun'.
The Chron gives over the editorial page today to an "award-winning actress and playwright" who opines:
"White vigilantes get license to kill!!!!!!"
The question remains un-answered: Why wasn't the janitor asked instead?
“White law-abiding citizen exercising his right to free association also exercised his right to use deadly force to stop deadly threats from white people, including a convicted child molester, against him” may have been the janitor’s response.
It would not come as a shock to me if it turns out the Chron 'shopped' the page around until they found the most un-informed twit's take on the issue and ran with that.
Janitors aren't trained to unthinkingly recite lines written by others.
Since progressives strive for a permanent democratic socialist government, why wouldn't they also strive to outlaw guns? Resisting government is only virtuous when some evil fascist* is in charge.
*To progressives, anyone who blocks their totalitarian agenda is a fascist.
"Coffee, who is black, fired back at police officers who engaged in a no-knock raid without clearly identifying themselves."
Soon, these events will not occur, since under empathetic government with appropriate broad powers, doors will not be necessary (or legal).
Editorial: Rittenhouse case underscores why nationwide age floor of 21 is needed for guns
"We need a nationwide age floor of 21 for guns so that Grosskreutz was able to shoot Kyle without impediment."
What is that guy in the picture thinking? Unless he's planning on taking 300+ yard shots having the Palomar Observatory mounted to his weapon is a very poor choice. The red dot on the ladies gun is a much better option for quick shots inside a hundred yards and even out to 200.
He thought it looked cool.
I saw a video on YouTube one time with Chris Paranto, one of the guys at Benghazi, showing off his weapon that he took on security contracts. Other than a couple small bells and whistles like a barrel handle, it wasn't that much different from what the average AR-15 owner has in their closet, and was probably even more spare than most. The message was pretty clear that you don't need to gussy up one of the most accurate rifles ever invented to effectively defend yourself.
Paraphrasing Rumsfeld, you go with the gun you have, and not the one you want.
I did notice that he had an iron sight in front of his scope, and she had backup pop up sights with her red dot sight.
Chamber flags on loaded guns as well. As I said above. The people, the flags, scopes looking at front sight posts, reflex sites on popup sights... it's theater.
Cowitness backup irons aren't that uncommon with a red dot. Very handy if the battery or something else goes wrong with the red dot.
But yeah, the chamber flags and that ridiculous scope that practically sits on the sight/gas block and runs back to block the charging handle is definitely all about show not go.
Cowitness backup irons aren't that uncommon with a red dot. Very handy if the battery or something else goes wrong with the red dot.
I'm aware. Per Bruce's self-discussion, if I had to hand someone else a gun to go on patrol with, odds are one of them would have a scope even if the confrontation was expected to be at close range (gun you have v. gun you want). It's not the explicit arrangement of her gun that's absurd, it' the overall arrangement of the two given the available options. The scope goes on the gun with the pop up sights and the reflex optic goes on the gun with the fixed front sight.
My big thing isn't the scope in general, it's that particular POS (Palomar Observatory Scope). If it was a 1-6x I'd have no issue but that's what 8-24x? It's ridiculous.
But I suppose I can believe that not everyone has another upper they can just pop on. Especially when it is just theater.
But I suppose I can believe that not everyone has another upper they can just pop on. Especially when it is just theater.
Right. Not everyone has an extra upper to pop on. Pretty much everbody has a screwdriver to put the scope and the red dot on the appropriate rifle. Especially for theatrical purposes.
There appear to be several photos of the two. One showed the chamber flags. The other did not. One theory is that they removed the chamber flags when they went into harm’s way. Which may not be that bad of a strategy.
BTW - she was apparently 16 at the time.
There's a photo of him with a magazine, her without, chamber flags in both rifles.
It's. just. fucking. theater.
I'm reminded of the guy that Reason ran a story on that was carrying something like an AR, an MP5 (or similar), a couple of semi-automatic pistols, and a SUB-2000 hanging from a lanyard on his belt. Maybe a shotgun strapped across his back too.
He went out to the back yard, fired a shotgun with shot from a range of about 10 ft. and shouted "Bullseye!".
Theatrics.
did you not see their interview yesterday? she said if she was Rittenhouser she wouldn't have fired.
My grandfather was a hunting guide (among other things). He'd always chuckle at the fancy rifles with fancy scopes and multi-shot capability his clients would bring with them from the big city. His deer hunting rifle of choice was a single-shot bolt-action .308 with iron sights. He said if you missed the first shot when the deer was standing still or walking slowly, you'd never hit the second shot when it was bounding away at high speed and you were too pumped up with adrenaline. And in the North woods you were unlikely to ever get a shot over 50 yards anyway, because of the heavy brush.
He bagged more deer than anyone of course. I would have inherited his rifle probably, if not for that fishing accident where his boat tipped over that one time before he could right it.
From my shitlib former representative, ex-Army Ranger who was cowering like a bitch from a bunch of blue-collars on January 6th:
Rep. Jason Crow
@RepJasonCrow
A justice system can't "fail" if it was never meant to deliver justice for some people in the first place.
Today's verdict is a travesty. We have to do better.
My thoughts are with the family of the victims and the communities who are hurting. You deserve reform.
It's too bad Crow didn't get blown up by an IED in the AOR, we might have been spared these insipid nuclear takes from a Congressman who's knowledge of the trial was limited to MSNBC.
Didn't the system just deliver "justice" to Andrew Coffee?
You really think some neoyuppie trash like Crow is going to acknowledge that? His class is perpetually crippled by confirmation bias.
My thoughts are also with Kyle's family, but there's only one of him so pluralizing "victim" is incorrect.
I have no sympathy for Kyle's mother. She allowed her 17 year old wimpy kid to drive without a license to his friend's house across state lines so he could go to a violent protest with armed an AR-15. The AR-15 was illegal for him to buy, so his friend bought it for him. In fact she let him drive without a license for an extended period of time.
I have no sympathy for any of the people Rittenhouse killed, or their mothers. Their mothers did such a piss poor job of raising them that they were all career criminals who were there for no other purpose than to engage in mayhem, and one of them was a child rapist who sodomized young boys. I hope their mothers all go to be every night knowing their sons were terrible people and that it's probably their fault.
"First-time gun buyers favor Biden over Trump," the Dallas Morning News reported of pre-election Texas survey results. "In fact, 51% of first-time purchasers surveyed favored Biden, while 43% favored Trump."
Now let's see how they feel about keeping those guns, and who they decide to favor going forward.
Now let's see how they feel about keeping those guns, and who they decide to favor going forward.
I guarantee a lot of those purchasers are Antifa types, and they're still going to support Robert O'Rourke going after everyone's guns because they know he won't do a damn thing to touch theirs, ad they are his stormtroopers.
51% expressed approval of Biden. 43% said they favored Trump. 38% expressed support for Brandon.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/16/janet-yellen-warns-u-s-could-hit-debt-limit-december-15/
The key question is whether of not Mitch McConnell will once again rescue Biden's socialism, increasing government debt and inflation.
Luckily, tax revenues are higher than ever, so it should be a simple matter to cut spending enough to balance the budget and avoid going over the debt ceiling.
>>The high point in support for stricter laws was 1990
Jane Pauley led us to believe dozens of peeps were being gunned down on the 101 and 405 every day
Amazingly, the lead headline on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal was "Chinese Tennis Star Tells Olympic Committee She is Safe"
But according to CNN, the Chinese government continues to censor CNN's broadcast whenever they discuss the missing tennis star.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cnn-china-peng-shuai-disappearance-b1962162.html
Seems like the WSJ (like Fox News) has increasingly been touting pro Chinese left wing propaganda.
I still haven't figured out how Kyle Rittenhouse getting acquitted is racist. Can someone please explain it to me? Is it that white people often get the benefit of the doubt in self-defense cases and black people don't? If that's the case then... I agree, but shouldn't the goal be to afford black defendants their proper day in court as well? The outcome here isn't wrong, it's just that we should be pushing for the right thing to be done for everyone.
Other than that, I'm at a loss. I really can't figure it out. Do people think he was cruising around town shooting black people at random? Because while that also happened in Wisconsin that was the police doing that, not Kyle Rittenhouse.
Racism is simply a tool of the left. Rittenhouse dared to stand up to the violent left, so he must be attacked with any tools at their disposal. It doesn’t matter if using it makes any logical sense in this case, because their followers don’t require logical sense to take up the narrative.
someone please explain it to me?
Yes. Left wingers didn't get the outcome they wanted, therefore it is racist.
I still haven't figured out how Kyle Rittenhouse getting acquitted is racist.
Racist systems existed. Ergo, anything that can be conceptually cobbled together, including the process of conceptually cobbling things together itself, is racist. QED.
It's not about lowering the incarceration of black males, it's about increasing the incarceration rate of white males.
It's like you haven't even been paying attention for the last decade
When youre a Dog Whistle Race Baiter, everythings racist...
The Stuck on Stupid Lead Paint Eating Left dont know anything else.
Is anyone surprised the person who drove into the Christmas parade in Waukesha had a lengthy criminal history, was a person of color, and had blogged about Rittenhouse?
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2021/11/22/reports-darrell-e-brooks-identified-as-person-of-interest-in-wisconsin-christmas-parade-massacre/
I doubt RH is the motivation. The guy was speeding, but more like he was driving away from someone (as is reported) than that he was trying to cause maximum casualties.
After driving a car into one person (especially a defenseless child), any rational human would have stopped the car immediately (unless the driver had just committed another murder, and was trying to escape).
But Brooks kept his foot on the gas pedal, knowing that doing so would cause massive casualties.
The Defense:
"The Victims were free to run andcsre to blame for being run over."
There are minds out there thst sick.
Ot are least honk the fucking horn
I can't tell how this is supposed to relate to my comment.
How is this supposed to show he was motivated by the Rittenhouse verdict? The elevated video clearly shows he did not drive through the most crowded part of the parade.
Obviously my comment does not say he did nothing wrong.
The elevated video clearly shows he did not drive through the most crowded part of the parade.
There is always room for improvement.
I doubt RH is the motivation.
He didn't say Rittenhouse was the motivation. Even if he did and it were wrong, there's still the gestalt as the fact that Kyle shot three people at a BLM rally who just happened to be a wife beater, a pedophile, and a low-level criminal.
As pointed out elsewhere, people on Twitter shouting about how the guy who drove through a Christmas parade would be claiming self-defense. Gotta take Kyle's guns away because he was defending himself and guns are icky but a wanted felon killing more people with an SUV is just the tragic circumstance of attending a Christmas parade.
"gestalt"
That dates you to the 80s!
I guess if the little kids this fucker ran over had been burning Waukesha to the ground in the name of 'soshul jizztizz," they'd be more upset about it.
"They made a poor decision to cross municipal boundaries to go watch grandma dance in a Christmas parade."
He didn't say Rittenhouse was the motivation.
He implies it by saying the guy blogged about RH.
As pointed out elsewhere, people on Twitter shouting about how the guy who drove through a Christmas parade would be claiming self-defense.
Yes, they are stupid and do not understand anything about either the facts of the RH case or the law itself.
He implies it by saying the guy blogged about RH.
IDK, I'd agree it's more implicating than just "He also has a blog.", but the idea that he because he blogged about it, he was motivated to do what he did is your extrapolation, not Godshall's.
As I implied, nobody knew/knows Grosskreuz', Rosenbaum's, or Huber's political alignment definitively (or even remotely really). The left just assumed they were on their side because they were at the rally. By that same token, regardless of his motivation for the vehicular slaughter, do you think the driver was blogging about how the justice system worked appropriately for Kyle? If so, name the payout odds and I'll take that bet.
but the idea that he because he blogged about it, he was motivated to do what he did is your extrapolation,
No, if he didn't mean to imply RH was the motivation there's no reason to mention his blogging about RH at all.
The left just assumed they were on their side because they were at the rally.
Not quite. RB, AH, and GK all attacked a guy who opposed arson and rioting. Revealingly the left accepted this as proof they were on Team Blue.
do you think the driver was blogging about how the justice system worked appropriately for Kyle?
This is not relevant to my comment.
Revealingly the left accepted this as proof they were on Team Blue.
You say 'revealingly' like information or truth was conveyed. What information or truth would that be?
They previously pretended rioters and protesters were separate groups and while they supported protesters they did not support rioters. But their reaction here was to accept rioters as part of Team Blue. It reveals their previous assertion they didn't support rioters was a lie.
It reveals their previous assertion they didn't support rioters was a lie.
I'm being to taciturn and verbose:
Association is not causation, but it is still association.
I thought he was supposedly fleeing police. But I've tried not to get too deep into the story because people are still trying to construct a narrative about it rather than lay out the facts.
Based on what I've seen so far, he appears to have gotten in to a high-speed chase with the cops, turned down the street into the parade, saw that he'd fucked up and gone down the wrong road, then said "Fuck it," and floored the pedal because the cops were still on his tail.
IOW, even given this social media history, I honestly don't believe, for the moment at least, that this was racially motivated in any way. This simply looks like a criminal asshole who fucked up and ended up killing a bunch of people in the process of committing another crime. But we'll see what happens when we get more info (from sources other than the MSM).
Per talk radio today (the Rush replacements), the guy in Waukesha's crime of domestic violence, that he got such light bail for?
Was for trying to run over his baby mama.
You'd be drummed out of the Fiction Writers' Union if you came up with something so hackneyed.
The more that's coming out on this incident, the more it looks like it's going to be memory-holed and gaslit like the Syrian Muslim who shot up the Boulder King Soopers or the assholes who tortured that white retarded kid.
The media absolutely CANNOT risk the public coming to the realization that they are trying to start a race war--they'd have to go everywhere with an armed escort if they got off Twitter for five minutes and actually went out to talk to people.
Or the Somali who flicked a little kid over the top railing at Mall of America... Et Fucking Cetera.
There is a veritable Tyson Foods farm of chickens ready to come home to roost for the American Media.
Police did not say he was being chased. In fact they confirmed he was not. But he did stab someone earlier.
So if he wasn't being chased, it's looking more and more like he was looking to actually run people over. Whether that was racially motivated or not is up for debate (although I imagine it wouldn't be hard to aggravate him enough to admit "yeah, I wanted to kill dem crackas and dey babies"), considering he tried to run over his girlfriend, too, but the BLM shit and anything anti-white on his social media, especially in relation to the Rittenhouse verdict, is going to shushed up by the media as much as possible.
At his kind of shit is why I have no sympathy for going after the Marxist media.
Initial reports were that he was fleeing a stabbing. The "police chase" element was likely a misunderstanding from that.
Should be interesting to watch/read CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, Democrats and other left wing propagandists spin a narrative claiming that Darrell Brooks has been victimized and harassed by white supremacists his entire life, that driving a car into a crowd of children was self defense, and that white supremacists have falsely accused him of committing these awful crimes just because he's black.
Free hat McCollum
"...because everyone has a right to drive a car into a crowd... if they claim Victimhood status and we can use the incident to establish Communism.""
Democrats. Psychopaths. All.
"he was just a regular guy going about his day, minding his business..."
also where's the roundup? my day is incomplete until someone at reason quotes david french, and for pete's sake I need an opinion about jonah goldberg quitting foxnews
The guy that dove the red SUV into the crowd in Wisconsin appears to have been fleeing a crime.
Two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized the discuss the matter publicly, identified the person as 39-year-old Darrell Brooks.
Investigators were questioning him about an earlier crime, which one of the officials described as an argument involving a knife. The official cautioned the investigation was still in the early stages.
Online court records showed that a person named Darrell Brooks Jr., with a birthdate making him 39, has two open criminal cases in Milwaukee County. In one case, filed Nov. 5, he is charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, reckless endangering, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and battery. Records show $1,000 cash bond was posted on Friday.
----Associated Press
https://apnews.com/article/crime-milwaukee-388eec09cc3543874d30352e197168ca
If the news media were hoping this was somehow Rittenhouse related, they're disappointed now. From photos of the suspect, he does not appear to be a white supremacist. If this is in any way BLM related, it may only serve as ammunition for people who want to keep cash bail.
If he was bailed out on November 5th for bail violations and a violent crime, why let him go for paying $1,000 bail? I don't know that keeping him in jail would have prevented dozens of people being run over by a car, but the legitimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect our rights--both from the police and violent criminals.
youve gone downa dangerous slope with " Government uses law/ Courts to protect our rights.
When Govt controls and duspenses rights its a dangerous path down.
Ken is a true libertarian - as in a loyal Republican. If you question him then you're an unintelligent, unreasoned, stupid, mean, evil progressive with bad intentions who can only be stopped by something drastic. Keep it up and you'll have Sevo and Nardz knocking on your door.
sarc is a lying pile of lefty shit.
FOaD, asshole.
Oh cute. A turd of wisdom from muted Sevo. Let me guess "Die lefty shit!" or "Eat a bullet leftist scum!" Am I close?
Sevo may be slightly repetitive, but make a great point. Garbage is garbage.
On that note, why don’t you spend your time with like-minded compost leavings, like mother Jones or something. They might like you.
Sarcasmic is a pedophile
Only when you dream of being a child, perv.
Sarcasmic is also quite dimwitted, and less emotionally stable than his idol Rosenbaum.
Shouldn't you be out murdering people over politics?
Never have, never will, and have no desire to murder anybody.
That's your team.
I do applaud Rittenhouse for defending himself from the totalitarian pedophile who tried to kill him though.
Oh bull. You've advocated for deadly force on your political enemies more times than my ex wife cheated on me.
sarcasmic
July.16.2021 at 3:11 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I was going to add something about people who might be splattered by the mess, but nobody cares about your alone ass. Shit. Nobody will know you're missed until they shut the power off and things start to smell.
Which is a lot.
Seems deserved.
Fucking faggot. You’re obsessed with Ken.
"When Govt controls and duspenses rights its a dangerous path down."
The legitimate purpose of government being to protect our rights is the foundation of small state libertarianism--and the Declaration of Independence.
We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats.
We have courts to protect our rights from the police.
We have police to protect our rights from criminals.
We have Medicaid and Social Security for no good reason whatsoever.
If you can't justify what you want to do with the government in legitimate terms of protecting our rights, then what you want to do shouldn't be done by government.
youve gone downa dangerous slope
A slippery slope is a fallacy.
If you're talking about a legitimate chain of events, it isn't a slippery slope. It's a rational progression.
Yet nobody was chasing him prior to him plowing through the parade.
Convenient how this "excuse" has come out.
An amazing collection of delusional left wing nuts denouncing Rittenhouse, the judge, jury and verdict as white supremacy.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/19/live-updates-kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-on-all-counts/
Its Breit-Fag, whatd you expect?
Pix above. Only onec30 round mag? WTH can you do with 31 rounds? That wont even warm the barrel up.
Go 40 or go home.
PS The Ultimate Chrustmas gift..Kek Tek 223 pistol and 40 round mag..make EVERYONE at the range step back and take notice...
Dont leave home without it!
Dear Kel-Tec Klaus,
I've been a good boy all year. My boys asked for a semi-automatic Nerf blaster that feeds from 2 independent, removable magazines. If Nerf can do it, I'm sure the elves at the factory in Florida can whip up something similar in a 9, 5.56, or 7.62 mm (5.6 would also be acceptable). You wouldn't even have to give it away either, I've saved up my allowance so that, as long as it's not too expensive, you could make my Christmas wish come true.
Merry Christmas,
Mad.Casual
PS - Some extra ammo in my stocking would be appreciated. Milk and cookies will be waiting on the coffee table.
I'm leaving pot brownies and beer. See who gets their wish...
Wonder why your life is a mess.
sarcasmic
July.10.2021 at 9:23 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
About the only thing I miss about working in restaurants was access to drugs. There's always a dishwasher slinging weed and a waiter with nose candy.
Have considered ordering KelTec merch then adding “Pro Team” to it.
Jeez, Mad: they made a quad-stack feeding pistol. Surely that should be enough? Albeit that was in one magazine, not two.
Kel-Tec would rule the world...if they were a subsidiary of some company that actually could make a bunch of reliable products and not just have great ideas. FN, maybe, or Ruger. That 5.7 pistoly thing from Kel-Tec looks nifty, albeit about as concealable as a Deagle.
Albeit that was in one magazine, not two.
Being able to shoot from the magazine and reload at the same time effectively circumvents any capacity bans. Really, I'd like to be able to shoot from a couple magazines and load loose shells of several calibers at the same time/as needed. Ultimately, I would prefer to be able to wish bad guys into the cornfield and have a letter sent to their NOK saying "Do better next time.", but I understand the Kel-Tec elves can't work magic. Even something as simple as quick-disconnect/mag release on shotgun tubes would be fairly simple and pretty mind-blowing:
Jerry Miculek: Here's how you quad load. *deft hand movements*
Dumb Schmuck: And here's how you heptuple load. *presses button, inserts new full tube*
Kel-Tec would rule the world...if they were a subsidiary of some company that actually could make a bunch of reliable products and not just have great ideas. FN, maybe, or Ruger.
In a general sense, I agree. However, you say this, but I handled a S&W M&P12 this past weekend and was very underwhelmed. Not bad, but not better than the KSG and certainly not at the $400 MSRP (for whatever that's worth). Especially considering the relative R&D budgets and the relatively simple suggestions I've made (and that I'm sure others have).
$400 *higher* MSRP, that is.
keltys dont jam right out of thebox.
.Glocks do
Tarus do
Ammo in Liberals stockings....above a roaring fire
You insulting my 31 round Glock mag?
Why do you own guns if you’ve admitted it’s not safe for you to carry one?
Especially his drunken ass.
sarcasmic
November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.
So I don't put myself into the situation this kid put himself into.
It just sucks.
31 round semiautomatic handgun magazines are idiotic. Full auto, maybe, but don’t expect to see much more than spray and pray in accuracy. I bought a couple of 9 mm 31 or so round magazines, and tried them once. Ridiculous. I use them in my 9 mm carbine instead, where they work just fine.
Clearly youre clueless...
Turn on your Gaslight...just dont light it
"Americans' support for stricter gun control has fallen five percentage points to 52%, the lowest reading since 2014," Gallup reported last week
So a majority...
A majority polled. Not a majority.
The Majority have bought 430 MILLION guns and > 20 Billion rounds of ammo and do not support the poll
tl;dr; Everyone involved was white, nobody cares.
And he finally has gone full leftist. Everyone who disagrees with him is racist.
Poor broke, drunk Sarc.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1462847386489954312?t=3DFy4cf4OUtOreXO6k06pA&s=19
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Darrell Brooks Jr was out on bail after he was charged with purposely running over a woman with his vehicle
Are you paying attention yet?
[Link]
I was going to talk about his light bail in comparison to Rittenhouse, but none of his alleged crimes were homicide. Still, he had a history of bail-jumping and fleeing arrest, in comparison to a kid with no criminal history that turned himself in.
There's a conversation to be had about bail reform but I don't have answers. There's subjective elements at play in all cases so I don't know how to create a system that's always fair.
It’s almost like some of the people that purport to support criminal justice reform go out of their way undermine reasonable reform to the public.
Right. They clamor for criminal justice reform, and then cry because Jodge Schroeder berated the prosecutor for infringing on a defendant's rights.
It's not about fixing the problem, it's about changing the winners and losers.
To what?
So that’s a “no” from Tony. Shocking.
Australia is being run by a right-wing government.
You want a political party that denies that COVID is real, you only have the American GOP.
Could be they're right and literally everyone else is wrong. Could be. They do have Louie Gohmert in their intellectual firmament, so hard call.
Thanks for confirming my first answer.
Straw man as usual. Many GOP politicians encourage vaccinating. Including Rand Paul and Greg Abbott.
They just don't support coercion. Your camp has an image problem by now.
No faggot, they’re far left, like you.
https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1462830296601137155?t=ayv362VVexN5h5UxrsUTew&s=19
When a trump supporter was shot in the chest and killed leftists cheered
when a child rapist was shot and killed after attacking a teenager they mourned
Cheered? Who cheered? I want one example of someone cheering or the tweeter you're regurgitating is a liar.
Projection ain't just a river in Egypt.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1299956667287703553?s=20
Watch the video. I mean, you can talk about the framing or interpretations but there's the fact that she said those words and was cheered.
Is that random person being feted on FOX News as a hero?
That was a quick goalpost shift.
Yes, if some rando somewhere in the universe didn't cry over a dead fascist, that means Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
Tony
November.22.2021 at 1:51 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Cheered? Who cheered? I want one example of someone cheering or the tweeter you're regurgitating is a liar.
Have you suffered head trauma recently? Because you’ve gotten worse at this.
No, he has a chronic need to get the last word. Just let him have it. Otherwise he'll come back to this story at 2 AM and get the last word in every comment string.
Yes, sadly, Tony was trying to reenact the Enumclaw Incident but forgot to pull his head *out* of his ass before the horse stuffed it's cock *into* it. Massive head trauma ensued.
Well I’m certainly glad I looked THAT up.
fascist
Go fuck yourself sideways with a full-grown Saguaro, you greasy liitle lefturd scumbag.
-jcr
Nice non-sequitor.
Speaking of non-sequitors, what your thoughts on the Fermi Paradox? Do you believe the nature of intelligent life leads to self-destruction?
Maybe there's an external Great Filter?
I just know that, per the theoreticians, your civilization wants to be the first one past it.
I assume that any surviving intelligent species quickly sheds biological bodies and any desire to travel the cosmos. We are, however, making a strong case for your hypothesis right now.
You aren't intelligent life though.
You should shed your biological body now. Perhaps dive into a barrel of acid or douse yourself in gasoline and light a match.
Notice Tony didn't bother trying to refute that shitlibs are mourning a kiddie-raper.
"We got one of theirs" they shouted to the zombies gathered in the Portland streets, moments after fatally shooting Aaron Danielson as he walked down the street.
The crowd of zombies responded with loud cheers.
Whole. E. Fuck!
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1462740215571918849
AUSTRALIA - The army is now transferring positive Covid cases and contacts in the Northern Territories to ‘Quarantine Camps’ by army truck.
So it wasn’t a conspiracy theory then.
Off to the gulags, comrades!
Also of note but, per spoken pronouncement on video, it's not just the infected either, they're relocating contacts as well.
Contact tracing apps to help fight the spread of
terrorismthe infection, FTW!Where's Ron "The only way out is through more testing and passports" Bailey at?
So they never want tourism dollars again i see.
Enjoying some Junipero and a hint of vermouth, I hope. As I currently am.
I don't know where my, "Shoot these people in the face," line is, but 'forcibly being relocated to camps' is on the other side of it.
Hard to stop that game when both teams really start playing.
An armed society is a society where it's hard to find people willing to go door-to-door, yanking people out of their homes.
"Karen has made her decision; now let her enforce it."
they murder unborn babies.
Consider the mental illness of the source
https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason/status/1462785452130328581?t=cOrCAbv0CzgKOMLPp7rdPA&s=19
Have the Milwaukee Bucks canceled their game tonight in solidarity with the people of Waukesha?
Whitlock may be an asshole, but he knows his way around a phrase a lot of times.
No, is the answer to his question. Doubt they'll need grief counselors on staff either.
Have agreed with Whitlock far more than disagreed with him. Think he burnt bridges with the MSM sports outlets for speaking his mind, which is incongruent with wokedom.
Hahaha! No.
Conservatards have found the perfect moral system: If you're too stupid to understand the implications of your policy beliefs, you don't have to take moral responsibility for them.
It's not like anyone's going to prison for pushing maximum gun proliferation like cultish NRA puppets, no matter how many excess tens of thousands of deaths this causes for no demonstrable social benefit. Just be stupid, and you don't have to care, because facts are optional to the stupid.
What are you word salading about this time?
The dark sludge at the core of your soul, of course.
Other than that.
NRA.. thousands of deaths..?
It's word salad to me. My guns never killed anyone that I know of. Some I bought p2p without any background checks, so I can't be totally sure. But I didn't kill anyone with them!
Countries with strict gun possession laws a) do not have the same rates of gun deaths as the US by orders of magnitude and b) do not suffer from any demonstrable deficit in freedom.
In fact, America is the one slipping off the democracy pedestal, despite its rampant gun proliferation. Gun nuts are the one pushing it off, in fact.
If you don't accept that very liberal gun laws means more people die with guns, you aren't being an adult and aren't participating in life with responsibility.
In fact, America is the one slipping off the democracy pedestal, despite its rampant gun proliferation. Gun nuts are the one pushing it off, in fact.
Nah, white leftists are far more dangerous than gun nuts.
Because they vote in an orderly, non-threatening manner in a way you don't approve of?
How many ways are you going justify totalitarian power-mongering to yourself? It's not like a novel concept.
Because you aren't smart enough to not charge an armed man and cry the blues when you suffer the consequences.
How many ways are you going justify totalitarian power-mongering to yourself?
Just one--white leftists are evil personified.
And then there’s all the rioting and looting. Like in your home of San Francisco. Three nights in a row. All democrat voters.
Australians would like a word.
…. do not suffer from any demonstrable deficit in freedom.
See the story about the camps in Australia above.
Peak freedom! - Tony
Since were just talking opinion. No, I suspect they get stabbed, or bombed, or driven over by cars, poisoned, strangled or beaten to death, instead. But I bet the murder rate stays pretty darn constant.
I don’t know why you find that an improvement.
And from my subjective observation and readings, freedom IS decreased without a armed-populace. There’s a reason why the US government disarmed the Indians. There’s a reason the Germans disarmed the Jews before Kristallnacht. There’s a reason Machiavelli talked about armed citizens. Pattern is fairly clear, consistent And has stood the test of time.
"b) do not suffer from any demonstrable deficit in freedom"
That is your bias right there. You also have never lived in a country that has disarmed their citizens. Gun laws are frequently strictest in authoritarian regimes. Check out North Korea, China, for good measure. European countries are only "free" to you if you have a very narrow, highly conformist set of personal values.
The United States is exceptionally free and prosperous precisely because it allow its citizens to have guns. A government that is designed to self-restrict from the start is unique. You don't understand the country you live in.
Not to be outdone by conservatards and their crusade against implications of policy beliefs Tony says, "Hold my Jacob Blake commemorative dumpster fire."
This post is as pointless as your life.
And what is the point of your life? You gonna survive the death of the sun? You gonna do great things once you're converted to photons?
There is no point to anything. There is only cultivating a small corner of the universe so that conscious life can flourish, because, fuck, isn't that cool?
What was that? You want to destroy the biosphere of that little corner of the universe because you can't emotionally handle the fact that you thought Sarah Palin was a good politician?
Oh, well fuck.
“because you can't emotionally handle the fact that you thought Sarah Palin was a good politician?”
That’s not a fact. It’s just you making up bullshit because you’re a lying ass troll.
You really should be executed for treason.
If you're too stupid to understand the implications of your policy beliefs, you don't have to take moral responsibility for them.
That's the lefturd playbook, pinhead.
-jcr
https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1462776178947899392?t=2KgXJN8NWEjpkf9GEMw9Pw&s=19
Guys...
"AUSTRALIA - The army is now transferring positive Covid cases and contacts in the Northern Territories to ‘Quarantine Camps’ by army truck.
So it wasn’t a conspiracy theory then.
#COVID19 #Australia [link]"
Sorry, shoulda scrolled down here rather than there.
It's probably not a bad thing that such news is posted repeatedly
Dammit. I invested in railroad cars in the US under Trump. I shoulda invested in army trucks in Australia under Morrison. Fucked by the market again!
Give it a couple months
Camping in the Outback
Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder. He's neither villain or hero but a stupid kid who should not have been walking around at night with a weapon designed specifically to kill humans efficiently, nor should he have been facing life in prison. I'm happy he didn't get that, but walking away free after essentially bringing dynamite to a volatile situation which then blew up deserved limited punishment.
As to AR15s and other weapons of this type, if allowed at all, they should not be allowed for open carry on our streets. They were designed specifically as killing machines for human targets which have the following design elements. They fire high speed rounds which produce damage to tissue and organs which can often not be treated effectively by doctors because they explode the body, including organs in proximity. The reason for this physics. Damage from rounds increase in a direct straight line result of weight increases, while increases from speed of the round are exponential. Secondly, the smaller rounds means less recoil, and thus more control by the shooter. Being high capacity and light semi-automatics add to the lethal mix. You can Google it and read what doctors who treat these type wounds have to say to confirm this. Unless we think Elon Musk and Bill Gates should be able to buy nuclear weapons, we all agree there should be limits on what private citizens should legally be allowed to own in the US. These weapons should not be among them, or at least be restricted and not allowed on our streets in open carry.
Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder.
"Not guilty." - Joe Friday
they should not be allowed for open carry on our streets...
not allowed on our streets in open carry.
"We need AR-15 CCW permits." - Joe Friday
It’s funny that you actually read his post.
Skimming the first and last sentence of every paragraph saves time.
yes mad and let's you get back to the content free insults and cheer leading this site abounds in.
^Just jealous I was able to summarize the content of his post so succinctly.
ARs are excellent firearms for protecting oneself from a group of violent and deadly rioters. I believe there was a recent example of a law-abiding citizen using one in public in such a scenario. Think it was in Wisconsin.
Chumby, given Rittenhouse admitted his actions were based on a feared having his gun taken and used on him, being armed was endangerment to him and others, not protection. No one else was shot and killed in Kenosha, so what threat was there?
"I'm going to cripple you, rape your children, and set fire to your house is not a credible threat unless the speaker is holding a gun." - Joe Friday
The speeker was holding a gun
Point being, he doesn't have to be armed in any way to constitute a threat.
Joe is essentially saying that if Jacob Blake were beating his girlfriend, again, she wouldn't be justified in shooting him because he wasn't armed.
Grosskreutz is now just partially armed.
At least 2 of the 'protestors' at the scene had drawn pistols and Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot. Just because that idiot didn't hit anyone does not eliminate the threat that he posed. Rittenhouse's defensive actions eliminated the second threat.
So women shouldn’t wear short skirts? Especially in front of criminal pieces of shit like the convicted kid diddler? Or if they do, the rape is the woman’s fault?
They targeted Rittenhouse and chased him. Four people attacked Rittenhouse.
Go try to grab an LEO’s firearm and report back to us how that works out.
Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder.
It wouldn't have mattered a bit since self-defense is still a defense to manslaughter.
Marshal, self defense does not describe his actions prior to his engagement with the 3 people he shot, and that was the behavior which was culpable man slaughter. That behavior resulted in predictably dangerous conflict. Without the gun, neither he or the others were in danger of dying.
A jury who saw all the evidence vehemently disagrees with you. For the handle that you have chosen, you sure don't seem to give a shit about "just the facts".
Chuck, the jury was not hearing a case for manslaughter, so they didn't consider that argument. That's on the prosecution.
the jury was not hearing a case for manslaughter, so they didn't consider that argument.
That is idiotic beyond belief. Fact - KR admitted he shot 3 people and shot at 2 others. If he wasn't defending himself, he was guilty of murder. If he was, he wasn't guilty of anything. Fact - manslaughter was not an option because the shootings were not unintentional and so don't fit the criteria.
Again, as you do not respect facts, why do you use that handle?
Joe’s feelings are that rioters should be allowed to riot. And if they want to assault a law-abiding person, with deadly force no less, so be it.
Caveat: If they support leftist causes, they should be allowed.
self defense does not describe his actions prior to his engagement with the 3 people he shot, and that was the behavior which was culpable man slaughter.
Legally possessing a gun is not manslaughter. It's bizarre what you nuts claim to believe to support your conclusions. This is the left's effort to criminalize guns despite the 2nd Amendment prohibiting exactly that.
That behavior resulted in predictably dangerous conflict.
If this is true why did the rioters not attack anyone besides Rittenhouse? In fact it was the arson, and the riots themselves, which led to predictably dangerous conflict. Something like 40 people were killed during the riots, but no one on the left applies this concept of expected violence to their allies. They invent it only to attack those they oppose.
Without the gun, neither he or the others were in danger of dying.
This is fantasy thinking. You just don't care whether he could have been killed so you accept that risk without concern. In reality more people are killed with fists every year than with rifles. Moreover people with Rosenbaum had guns and any confrontation could have involved them, and indeed these very people were inciting Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse.
Marshal, I did not say legally possessing a gun - which in fact Rittenhouse was not - was manslaughter. Bringing one to a dangerous situation which results in 2 dead people, primarily because the defendant admitted he feared having his gun taken from him and used on him, does.
There were no other deaths in Kenosha than those caused by Rittenhouse's actions.
I did not say legally possessing a gun - which in fact Rittenhouse was not was manslaughter.
Sure you did, although you're trying to hide it. It's already proven in court he acted in self defense so you're pretending something else satisfies the charge. It does not.
And of course RH legally possessed the gun. Not only did we always know this but it was irrefutably established in court. This is why left wingers are (rightfully) ridiculed, facts simply are not relevant to them.
There were no other deaths in Kenosha than those caused by Rittenhouse's actions
There were no deaths caused by Rittenhouse's actions. Revealingly there were no other deaths caused by Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz' attacks on Rittenhouse because they didn't attack anyone else. This was their tragic choice.
They were reacting to what seemed like an active shooter. They were acting in self-defense. The only difference is they didn't have big enough weapons to compete.
You only care about which political team gets a win. Just admit it so we can all move on with our lives.
They were reacting to what seemed like an active shooter.
Why? After he shot the child molester, there were no shots until they attacked him again.
Why didn’t they attacked the rioter that first fired when individuals were following Rittenhouse culminating in Rosenbaum lunging for the rifle?
I don’t know who came up with this Active Shooter nonsense. It didn’t matter legally. Even if Rittenhouse had killed the child rapist Rosenbaum in cold blood, and was trying to escape, their use, or attempted use of deadly force was not legally justified. Rittenhouse was attempting to escape the crowd, and they were trying to prevent that. That meant that he had disengaged, and was trying to retreat. That means that legally he was the innocent party. Which means that they could not be, because they were the ones forcing the confrontation. No self defense for them.
Yes, cops can legally stop an active shooter attempting to escape. But even for them, the offense has to be significant enough that the fleeing suspect endangers the community. Thus, after Big Mike Brown tried to take Officer Wilson’s gun away from him, Wilson could, and we would expect that he would, have pursued Brown after the attempted murder committed in his presence (since it was aimed at him). But only the police are privileged legally to stop fleeing suspects, even with deadly force, when necessary. Not the three guys (plus Drop Kick guy) trying to stop Rittenhouse.
They were reacting to what seemed like an active shooter.
An active shooter is trying to kill everyone they can. RH ran through 100 people without shooting any of them so RH was proven not an active shooter by their own eyes. Any claim attacking him was justified because someone else told them something different is wrong because these facts were clearly evident and take precedent over something some rando told them.
They were acting in self-defense.
Wrong. They were mob vigilantes trying to Lynch RH. It's interesting lefties pretend to oppose vigilantes even as they celebrate them. They just aren't smart enough not to contradict themselves.
You only care about which political team gets a win
Tony is describing himself again. He wouldn't recognize a principle if it strangled him never having had one himself.
Marshal, you are repeating a falsehood already slapped down and clearly don't understand the issue.
Bitch, you haven't stated a single fact in any of your mewlings. Go march in a Christmas parade, you senile shit.
Red Rock, thanks for your kind words, and I'll be sure to give them the consideration they deserve.
Is there something wrong at home. Do you need help?
Loser.
"Loser."
Proper response to asshole Joe!
What would be wrong? Your allies got the ending they deserved.
Loser.
Sure if by "slapped down" you mean "disagreed with by lefties but in reality 100% true".
The deaths were never caused by Rittenhouse's actions, they were caused by Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz' actions.
The reason nobody else was shot to death that night is that nobody else was assaulted by people trying to grab their gun. There were a lot of guns in Kenosha that night, so it's not like the mere sight of a gun drove people into a murderous rage. They were able to deal with it all night-the only exception was that Rosenbaum tried to ambush Kyle when he was alone.
The five boys who filed the charges against Rosenbaum, for which he was convicted for multiple sexual contact with a minor, can all sleep easier now knowing that the monster cannot harm anyone else.
Marshal, I did not say legally possessing a gun - which in fact Rittenhouse was not
Which in fact, he was, because the charge was dropped, you shitlib waste of molecules.
There were no other deaths in Kenosha than those caused by Rittenhouse's actions.
No, the deaths were caused by Pedobaum wanting to rape another minor and Huber taking a skateboard against a gun.
The only people Rittenhouse engaged were those who were trying to harm him. You can't accept this because you are a shitlib waste of carbon molecules.
Well, I suppose that's one way to get your authoritarian ya-yas: simply declare that laws mean something different from what they actually are.
Joe Friday chooses to continue to use the lefty tactics of obfuscation and conflation to fallaciously attack the AR-15 and the 2nd Amendment.
First he ascribes all kinds of nastiness to the rifle which should be properly ascribed to the ammunition. The velocity of a round being 100% a result of the ammunition. Then he gets recoil wrong, the difference in the weight of various bullets are measured in grains for a reason. Then he denounces capacity and reloading capabilities, which are precisely what make any firearm adequate for self defense. If Kyle had to reload his weapon at any point, he may very well have had it taken or been shot by the guy pointing a pistol at him.
As I pointed out when he made the argument elsewhere yesterday. He doesn't care about physics or terminal ballilstics, nor does he care to. He simply wants to regurgitate leftist talking points that he thinks mean something.
The Hague Conventions specifically ban slower-moving frangible or deforming rounds, making their use in combat a war crime. Conceptually, the faster-moving FMJs are more capable of overcoming obstacles and disabling equipment and, thus, have wartime utility beyond rounds that simply inflict more trauma to soft tissue. The US didn't sign the Convention but generally abides this guidance. None of the signatories or observers give it any regard when it comes to law enforcement or civilian use.
The .45-70 inflicts far more damage to soft tissue than the 5.56 while frequently moving at less than half the speed, but it's generally loaded in a lever action rifle (necessitating soft points) and as such, isn't used by militaries, but is completely legal for civilians to use in many of the signatory countries.
doesn't care about physics or terminal ballilstics, nor does he care to
Doesn't *understand* terminal ballistics, nor does he care to, that is.
mad, in response to you and LiveMike on that thread, I posted:
Here you go on links - this will take you to many:
https://www.google.com/search?q=high+velocity+bullet+damage&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS958US958&oq=high+velocity+bull&aqs=chrome.7.0i512j69i57j0i512l4j0i22i30l4.19483j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I didn't say the rounds explode, I said they explode the body which is exactly what ER docs and others dealing with the aftermath describe. This includes organs not even hit but close by.
Also, a "square" means an exponent of 2.
Kinetic energy: KE = 1/2mv2 (where m is mass and v is velocity)
"Abstract
High velocity bullets inflict large wounds consisting of permanent and temporary wound tracks. The temporary cavity, which is present for only a few thousanths of a second, may inflict great damage at a distance from the permanent wound track. This feature sets such wounds apart from other penetrating and perforating wounds. Surgeons should attempt to determine the ballistics characteristics of the missile which inflicted the wound since the probable extent of injury may be predicted and appropriate treatment applied."
"I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange."
"Abstract
The gunshot wounds sustained on the battlefield caused by military ammunition can be different in nature to those usually encountered in the civilian setting. The main difference is that military ammunition has typically higher velocity with therefore greater kinetic energy and consequently potential to destroy tissue. The surgical priorities in the management of gunshot wounds are hemorrhage control, preventing infection, and reconstruction."
" "The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit.
"¼ Energy loss along a wound track is not uniform. Variations may be due either to behavior of the bullet or changes in the density of the tissue as the bullet goes from one organ to another. An increase in kinetic energy loss is reflected in an increase in the diameter of the temporary cavity. A full metal-jacketed rifle bullet will produce a cylindrical cavity until it begins to tumble. At this time, the bullet’s cross-sectional area will become larger, and the drag force will be increased. The result is an increase in kinetic energy loss and thus an increase in the diameter of the temporary cavity. With hunting ammunition, the picture is radically different. The bullet will begin to expand shortly after entering the body, with a resultant rapid loss of kinetic energy. A large temporary cavity is formed immediately as the bullet enters the body.
"¼ It has been found that above a certain critical velocity (800 to 900 m/sec or 2625 to 2953 ft/sec), the character of a wound changes radically with tissue destruction becoming much more severe. Trans- or super-sonic flow within the tissue causing strong shockwaves has been assumed to be responsible for this effect. In experiments by Rybeck and Janzon, 6-mm steel balls weighing 0.86 gm were fired at the hind legs of dogs. They found that at a velocity of 510 m/sec, the volume of macroscopically injured muscle was only slightly larger than the diameter of the bullet. At 978 and 1313 m/sec, the volume of devitalized muscle was seen to be 20 to 30 times the volume of the permanent cavity."
I'm not going to read your hot take cherry picking. 'High velocity' rounds as described have been around for over a century. What these doctors suddenly, in the 21st Century, "discovered" is not exceptional. History is littered with comparative data as to their effect. Multiple sum totals of the data show that 5.56 rounds cause insufficient trauma to take down animals as large as a grizzly bears, buffalo, and moose while larger, slower-moving rounds like the .45-70 and .375 H&H Magnum kill, through massive internal trauma, as standard. I don't need their hot takes, I've read the first hand accounts of light loads being paid for in blood and seen the wound tracks, first hand, showing higher energy bullets delivering all of their energy to their target.
That you choose to require researcher to torture puppies in order to support your narrative and remain ignorant of the facts is your own moral issue to grapple with.
mad, nothing you wrote counters what i clearly stated and what as many ER docs as you want to ask can confirm - high velocity small calibers rounds - which AR 15's are designed to deliver quickly and in high numbers - are devastating to human tissue to the point of often not being repairable and by being small caliber and thus low recoil, the shooter can place multiple rounds efficiently in human tissue. I don't think these should be freely carried on our streets by vigilantes and I'm fairly certain most Americans would agree with that if they understood that "assault rifle" means more than just looking scary - or "cool" to guys like Rittenhouse.
Feelingz. I have no issue with my neighbors sporting ARs, which some of them do. We don’t have riots. We do have folks publicly exercising their 1A rights. Nobody tries to grab a legally carried gun or bash someone over the head with a skateboard. No buildings are burned. And they are completely peaceful events.
Chumby, if they are peaceful events, why bring ARs? Just queer for metal and never grew up?
If you constantly think of dicks or sex when you see a gun, shitlib, the problem isn't with the gun owner.
Rioting =/ peaceful. Four people assaulted Rittenhouse.
And an armed society is a polite one.
And one that has a spine and is free. Joe Friday will understand his defeat at one point.
"Chumby, if they are peaceful events, why bring ARs?"
If the event has nothing to do with driving, why bring cars? That would be called a car show, for example.
Your assumption that the mere presence of ARs means the absence of peace is false. In fact, when I go to the range with my family and my ARs, everything is peaceful.
You are also a loser, I forgot to add.
Joe, nothing you said makes a damn bit of difference in the situation indicated nor necessarily elsewhere and only serves to discredit the 'experts' you are quoting. You might as well be quoting people who weave baskets for a living the most effective way to win an NBA game.
Kyle wasn't firing on full auto at range. Two of the attackers didn't even get two bullets. Recoil was immaterial. The 'one shot stop' data for the .22 lr data is in the range of 50%. Which means, for the one perp he did shoot multiple times, four shots at point blank range is overwhelmingly likely to be irreparable by any medical professional. For larger and more dangerous animals at close range, where it's more important to stop them with a single shot, larger, slower-moving rounds that impart more energy into the target are the caliber of choice.
Thanks for the irrelevant interpretation of events mad. It doesn't change what AR 15's are designed to do and do well - kill humans or damage them beyond repair.
It doesn't change what AR 15's are designed to do and do well - kill humans or damage them beyond repair.
It's not what they were designed to do.
An armed public is to keep the peace in general. The utility of the second amendment outweighs the casualties.
Guns in the hands of the people are designed to keep the peace and freedom.
Again, loser, it is delightful to see your impotent anger over people being armed in a way that they can oppose a whiny, left-authoritarian LAPD cop. You, left-authoritarian, are a prime example of the importance of an armed public.
"I don't think these should be freely carried on our streets by vigilantes"
I am sorry that a sufficiently armed public is in the way of your left authoritarian power fantasies. Unfortunately, you have outed yourself as a perfect loser who wants activist judges that undermine the court system.
You are a loser.
I'll discuss terminal ballistics with you, if you want. Mad. I've doubts this 50-center can spell it without Google.
I'll just say that---even as fat as the American population has become in the last twenty years---there's a lot more meat, hide, and thick heavy bone to get through on even medium game animals, than there is on a human being. Ergo, sectional density, controlled expansion (or none, for solids on very dangerous game), and sufficient velocity to drive the projectile is key when selecting hunting ammunition, while bullets designed for military use frequently aren't as stoutly built, despite being limited to a FMJ-ish design.
855A2, 'brown tip', to pick on it, supposedly expands very well at typical engagement ranges. The FMJ Rittenhouse used was very explosive, within very little tissue, AFAIK from the GG arm injury. May have been a softly constructed bullet, may just have been going really fast, despite that RH's rifle barrel wasn't as long as many older M16s/AR-15s.
Ergo, sectional density, controlled expansion (or none, for solids on very dangerous game), and sufficient velocity to drive the projectile is key when selecting hunting ammunition
The critical detail being overlooked in Friday's assessment is *at range*. The 5.56 is more effective at killing people at a range of 4-500 yds., a range that can't be covered by a human in a matter of a couple of seconds. Everyone shot in this case was shot point blank or nearly so. Caliber/velocity is nearly immaterial to their survival.
Ultimately, the 5.56 is outright banned in many places for medium game while the .375 H&H magnum is allowed for pretty much any game that walks. I've seen zero evidence that any of the rounds Kyle fired stayed in the bodies he shot. I have zero doubt that a larger, slower moving round would've cause more trauma. Even if both bullets penetrate completely, the larger bullet with the greater sectional density imparts more energy more quickly and inherently generates a larger irreparable wound cavity. Friday's cites a study of firing 6 mm steel balls at dog legs, noting the increase in micro trauma and wound cavity as the speed goes from 1500 fps to 3000 fps. Nobody examines the microtrauma and wound cavity of a dog's leg shot with a 12.5 mm steel ball travelling at 1500 fps.
I think you can appreciate the shuffling of cards to explain the results to Grosskreuz' arm that has to happen to explain the 5.56 cause, shuffling that wouldn't be taking place had Kyle used a 12 ga. slug.
Gray Jay, thanks for the info on how best to kill fat Americans.
FOaD, asshole.
So you'll be eating a bullet soon?
Considerable question as to what constitutes 'best'.
The largest mass homicide (i.e. non-governmental/military) event in US history was perpetrated with box cutters. Nary a bullet was fired.
The second largest mass homicide event in US history was perpetrated with cyanide.
The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth largest mass homicide events were all bombings.
It's not until you get to the seventh largest event, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, that guns become conceivable as the most effective means of perpetrating mass homicide. Even then, it's seems likely but is not clear that all of the victims were shot to death. Moreover, in 1857, they were still just shy of a century away from the designing of the AR-15.
Considerable question as to what constitutes 'best'.
The largest mass homicide (i.e. non-governmental/military) event in US history was perpetrated with box cutters. Nary a bullet was fired.
Oh, shit! My list is out of date. Largest mass homicide event in US history was perpetrated with a pen and a phone in NYC in 2020.
Chuck, AR 15s and other "assault rifles" were designed to fire small caliber high velocity rounds for exactly the reasons I explained. Their destructiveness to human tissue and utility for mass shooters should limit their availability to citizens and especially in open carry situations.
Chuck, AR 15s and other "assault rifles" were designed to fire small caliber high velocity rounds for exactly the reasons I explained.
Just because you explained them doesn't make the explanation correct or accurate. The rounds the military originally chose to incapacitate humans as quickly and efficiently as possible were not chambered in the 5.56 and didn't move as fast as the 5.56 does. The 5.56 was chosen specifically because they were smaller and, as such, more of them could be carried further into the battlefield. Since Kyle wasn't standing on a battlefield and didn't exhaust his ammunition, the assertion that he chose the perfect weapon or round to kill 3 people is flatly wrong.
Moreover, as I pointed out to you below and you can't even bother to conceptualize, the alternative to 'open carry' is not 'no carry'.
mad, the army chose these type weapons because as you note their portability, but also for their killing ability where they worked, i.e., no long range targets, like the streets of Kenosha.
Haha, your allies are dead and crippled.
You are forgetting that they are also much more controllable in fully automatic fire (which requires an ATF stamp, that takes a lot of paperwork, and over a year to acquire). This is a good part due to lower and better controlled recoil. Our military was undergoing a change in strategy, from a rifle squad supported by a BAR gunner, to everyone in a squad being able to lay down automatic covering fire. The Germans had started down that route towards the end of WW II, and the Soviets followed suit soon after. Our military’s first serious attempt in that direction, the M-14, essentially a full auto version of their M-1 Garland, didn’t work out well, because automatic fire was hard to control with it, and it was too heavy.
But keep this in mind - the AR-15 was a civilian gun first. It was then adopted by the military later, and named the M-16 when officially adopted (the early military versions were still called AR-15s).
Bruce, Armalite sold the AR 15 to US and other military forces.
Colt did.
but also for their killing ability where they worked, i.e., no long range targets, like the streets of Kenosha.
Nope. 9mm are the preferred cartridges at that range for pretty much the same relative reasons; sufficient kinetic energy from smaller, easier to transport cartridges. It's why even officers and security personnel who don't get issued rifles, such as on a battleship, still get issued a 9mm sidearm.
"The 5.56 was chosen specifically because they were smaller and, as such, more of them could be carried further into the battlefield."
This. It takes a lot of bullets to kill someone on the battlefield. 5.56 lets you carry a lot more of them, without much degradation on individual bullet effectiveness.
I don't care if some idiot Leftist calls the AR-15 rifle the ideal choice for killing people. For a lot of purposes, it is ideal. If people are attacking me, I want the best choice for dealing with their threat of deadly force. Often, the AR is it.
.Mil has other, better means for dealing with attackers. Frankly, we should be allowed those as well. Many/most of the Founders' cannons---the state of the art in breaking up military land formations of the time---were privately owned. Without going to the ATF to ask permission for each piece, or each explosive shell.
Gray, I didn't say the AR 15 was the perfect weapon under all scenarios, but it was designed to kill people in some of them, namely where hitting long range targets is not required.
but it was designed to kill people in some of them, namely where hitting long range targets is not required
Again, untrue. There are, and were, better-designed weapons at both the near and far ranges. The AR-15/5.56 was designed to be a functional equivalent in between and much of the discussion surrounding it's adoption and obsolescence is it's shortcoming in both arenas.
As the people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government upheld by disgusting authoritarians like you, I think the AR alone is not powerful enough.
The defeated, bootlicking, disgraced authoritarian Joe Friday suggests that the public shouldn't have access to a tool that is being used by criminals (mass shooters).
The mental cripple known as Joe Friday should apply this to red SUVs. I hear they have been used by convicted felons to run over people at a Christmas gathering in Waukesha. Guess we need to ban red SUVs...
Well, yeah. Joe Friday is an absolute pants-on-head shit gargling fucktard. Almost as stupid as Tony, slightly dumber than a box of hair.
You make a compelling argument perlhaqr, at least by the standards of most of the MAGA "libertarians" here
FOaD, asshole.
BTW, why does anyone engage this asshole who does nothing other than spout leftard lies? It simply encourages more in the constant stream of bullshit running out of asshole Joe's keyboard.
I do because I want potential readers to see the other side of the story. Some don't know why freedom is important. I've been a lefty before I came to understand a few things.
It's probably in vain though. And it certainly is tedious.
Nobody cares what you think is a "compelling argument", loser.
“Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder.”
Agreed that manslaughter or something like “wreckless mayhem” is more appropriate than murder. I don’t know enough about Wisconsin law, though, to know what the charge that captures what he did, which was purposely looking for a fight, helping create a dangerous scenario where he ended up killing people.
Virtue signal somewhere people give a shit, fucktard. From a libertarian perspective, KR is well within moral, ethical and legal bounds.
Lol. Fuck off. You know nothing of wisconsin law. Even when linked applicable law you said you were right and Rittenhouse is guilty.
Youre not a fucking libertarian. Libertarians believe in self defense.
You know nothing of wisconsin law.
He knows nothing of law. Full stop.
Even a drooling, geriatric half-corpse at least nominally understands "Respect the jury."
"He knows nothing..."
Simpler, equally as accurate.
Agreed you are full of shit.
FOaD, asshole.
So the signs in San Francisco next earthquake should read: "Victims will be shot..."
Wow, that was a non-sequitor.
You copypasta'd this nonsense already, shitlib.
Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter,
No, he shouldn't have been charged at all. Anyone who looked at the video should know that.
-jcr
"Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter,..."
Asshole Joe should FOaD.
He engaged in self defense, so he’s innocent. He’s also an American hero.
https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1462857118164434948?t=nvXOuCLh4DGMIBJSz3ZuGQ&s=19
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris travelled to Kenosha to visit the career criminal Jacob Blake in the hospital.
There are multiple innocent children in the hospital in Waukesha, following the devastating Christmas parade.
Where are they?
I can see how the Hair-sniffer-In-Chief might not be welcome.
Please don't try to shame the Vegetable-in-Chief and Willie Brown's whore into visiting the Waukesha victims. They've suffered enough.
-jcr
https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1462861485152030734?t=vXtKGuYO8u0hbFb9m8yNUg&s=19
Darrell Brooks was not being pursued when he entered the Waukesha Christmas parade. [Video]
https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1462793730889498629?t=wfbhUx7fUmzbhycBNqmA8Q&s=19
Two more months have passed and Australia is now rounding up citizens and putting them into 'quarantine camps'...
Austria and Germany threatening to jail people who don't take the shot...
Many others implementing segregationist policies.
When can we compare to Nazi Germany?
Do we need to wait for people to actually get killed before we can draw any parallels in the escalation of rhetoric and policies?
That seems unwise.
When can we compare to Nazi Germany?
When have any of the atrocities of Socialism been allowed to be compared to the Nazis?
Leave it to American Republicans to appropriate civil rights language for disease-ridden bug chasers.
Just get the vaccine. No camp for you. Easy peasy.
Zuby is a black British musician
Or…… we just get rid of all you marxists. It’s so easy a 17 year old can do it.
Many others implementing segregationist policies.
When can we compare to Nazi Germany?
If I say "Apartheid was just a myth." does that light the Misek signal or no?
As someone said upthread, on a related but different topic, I don't know where the line is exactly, but people in boxcars is definitely on the other side of it. Once we get people in boxcars, I think Nazi comparisons stop being Godwin fodder.
So, buses are ok?
What about speeding SUVs?
https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1462847825960738818?t=nrMhHIazVHd-TH2cMoUVuQ&s=19
Could someone in the national conservative camp explain to me why they do not (as far as I can tell) support vaccine mandates? Seems like that would be a no-brainer policy for a movement that wants government to actively enforce the common good. (I oppose on libertarian grounds.)
"Never meet your heroes." should have an addendum about "Never ask your villains why they don't live up to your conceptions of villainy in real life."
Robbie likes debating the strawman in his head
If you're not more intelligent than that shut your pie hole.
You need an IQ over 97 to ride this ride.
KR, noted armed-to-the-teeth child simpleton, said he supports BLM to Tucker Carlson.
The sad lefties want to remind everyone of all the evidence that he palled around with white supremacists.
I think this is a good opportunity for peace and reconciliation. KR can't go around calling for the genocide of the browns like Tucker does every day. That would implicate him in a much darker scenario than he wanted to paint at trial.
The youngs just don't see color like Tucker does. KR didn't even kill any browns. In a generation, this country will be the melting pot that was always envisioned. White supremacists may control FOX News and the Republican party, but everyone can see that their actions are the lasts gasps of a dying thing, even if they may undemocratically control things for a while.
KR just wants to offer medical and protect car lots. Fuck, when I was 17 I was only interested in getting As and being horny. The kid's practically a hero, if you don't count the lives he destroyed for no reason.
KR for BLM! Go BLM!
Haha, Tony, your white lefty allies got clacked by a weepy, soft "simpleton," and there ain't shit you can do about it.
If someone like that can take out white shitlibs with that kind of surgical precision, what do you think will happen when guys with real, actual combat experience get involved after your side kicks off the race war you've been wanting for 50 years?
We wipe the, off the map in a week or two. I’ve never met a single leftist that would concern me a,red or unarmed.
Sorry your pedophile friend in the psych ward with you fucked around and found out.
FOaD, asshole.
Cry more.
Really. Listening to communists and religious fascists weep would be less tedious if it weren't so predictable. If we wanted to wallow in that we'd be over at Faux Snooze and Commie Nooz Nets. Why do so many of them come here to leave droppings on the Libertarians' lawn? Surely they're not terrified that Libertarian spoiler votes are going to queer the elections they try to buy and rob, right?
The strategy by the righties will be to show up at all protests now armed to the teeth in order to discourage peaceful protests.
Seems like the only way to protest would be to bring your own AR-15s (dozens of them) and have the armed people surround the people with signs to protect them. Then somebody from a 'militia' will point a gun at somebody protesting and there will be a bloodbath of 'self defense'.
The strategy by the righties will be to show up at all protests now armed to the teeth in order to discourage peaceful protests.
Restrict yourselves to burning down your deep-blue shitholes and you won't have to worry about it, shitlib. I got a good laugh this weekend at Denver Antifa's weak-ass "protest" that devolved in to them fighting each other, because apparently, quelle surprise, your side is full of rapists and kiddie fuckers.
There are plenty of right-wing shithole child molesters:
https://www.insider.com/qanon-influencer-said-dems-were-pedophiles-is-real-child-molester-2021-10
Think about this for a minute. All three of the guys that Rittenhouse shot were criminals already. But one was a convicted boy rapist (at least 5 victims, between the ages of 5 and 9), and another had raped his girlfriend. What are the odds?
Gene pool cleansed.
Biden compared Rittenhouse to white supremacists. But the convicted garbage that assaulted Kyle gets a free pass.
LOL, is this the bluetard version of "Dems R Da Reel Rayciss"?
Also, the guy who ran over the Waukesha parade-goers is a convicted kiddie-raper and BLM supporter.
QAnon is a fantasy bogeyman the New York Times uses to frighten soccer moms and retired boomers.
armed to the teeth in order to discourage peaceful protests.
Looting and arson aren't "peaceful protests", dipshit.
-jcr
How long will the jury deliberate in the McMichael case (Death of Ahmaud Arbery)? I'm guessing it's no more than 3 hours.
The only thing that might hold it up is there's quibbles about the top count of Malice Murder versus the secondary count of Felony Murder. I think malice can be thrown out but it would shock me if they're not convicted.
I've no idea. I haven't been watching. The defense failed to point out any probable cause for the McMichaels to attempt a citizen's arrest of Arbery, I take it? Did they call the cops even, before deciding to go 'follow' Arbery?
Idiots. Well, stupidity should be painful.
They were well into the chase, I think, before they called 911 on their cell phones.
Defense was building a decent argument for the defendants but then Travis McMichael got on the stand. And he said things like, "We didn't know what we were arresting him for." That's also on the video. So you can't have probable cause if you don't even know what crime has been committed. It's back to an unlawful imprisonment leading to shooting Arbery, so clearly a felony murder.
I guess the third defendant does complicate the verdict because he wasn't armed and joined the chase late, and arguably didn't know what was happening.
"Probe finds 'overwhelming evidence' of misconduct by Cuomo"
[...]
"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A legislative investigation released Monday found “overwhelming evidence” that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed women and that he ordered state workers to help produce his book on pandemic leadership during work hours.
The report also found that Cuomo’s staff “substantially revised” a state health department report on COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes to exclude statistics that might have dimmed his reputation as a pandemic leader.
[...]
But it offered some new details, particularly around the $5.2 million private deal Cuomo struck to write a book, “American Crisis: Leadership Lessons on the Pandemic.”
Cuomo had promised state ethics officials that no state resources would be used on the book, but the Assembly's investigators at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell said they found evidence the governor had his staff spend copious amounts of time on the project..."
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Probe-finds-overwhelming-evidence-of-misconduct-16641070.php
Now let's see if someone nails him for killing the people confined to the nursing homes.
Not a chance. He'll get a slap on the wrist for playing Harvey Weinstein, and the lefturds in the media will pretend that addresses all of his sins.
-jcr
Regarding comment on the Coffee case, I note use of the term “assault style weapon”. Pardon me for asking, but EXACTLY what is this “assault style weapon”. Note, I question “exact meanings”. Additionally, regarding the following from Senator Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., who speaks of and wants one assumes, “common sense gun safety reforms”, how about a plain English translation of that ringing phrase. Exactly what does she refer to?
She's a Pathologically Lying Liberal using dog whistle phrases.
Assault weapon is anything that looks scary.
Mmmmmm..Hen of the Woods wild mushrooms...breaded up and fried in oil...
Yum Yum !!!!!
And I had a GUN while picking them! Oh the horror!
The more dangerous a country is, and the less effectual the people view the government as being able to protect them, the LESS popular that gun restrictions will be.
The one role that a government should have in order to protect its people is the exclusive use of violence to enforce rules. Once the government abdicates that responsibility, then private citizens will take matters into their own hands to make up for it.
The enforcement of rules with threat of violence is literally the most essential role a government has. We can pretty much do the rest ourselves without society falling into chaos. Is it any wonder that when the government stops doing that, that chaos increases?
Liar.
NOTHING in the US or States Cinstitutions authorize or permit law enforcement.
LIAR.
In FACT ( contrary to your bullshit OPINION)
your ideal IS COMMUNISM.
ITS KARL MARX.
I know youre brain dead but other intelligent Readers should read " Marxism and Criminality.
Laws ( enfircement ) to control crime is COMMUNISM.
Heck, They should just read Das Kapital, it’s the best argument against communism I’ve ever read.
My favorite part in the book was when the ignorant Control freak (Marx) couldn’t even figure out why different workmen might want to use different hammers, and wanted to make them all use one kind of hammer.
Let’s not assume that he knew the difference between a sledge and a finishing hammer, as I don’t think the man had ever done a lick of work in his life.
"...The one role that a government should have in order to protect its people is the exclusive use of violence to enforce rules..."
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Tuccille, like all other writers, is better at reporting than making prophesy with no money riding on the clearly-defined outcome. The Second Amendment is what protects our right to have State militias and the national armed forces deploy anti-ballistic missile defenses against incoming attacks. A Congress of something other than looters would also provide effective countermeasures to prevent biological WMD attacks and make the perps rue the day for the rest of their very short lives.
Its 9:50 PM.
Do you know where your President is?
Does HE know where he is?
But what about Comstock, the Corn Laws and K-K-Kristians?
I’ll never give up my guns while the government puts the police on vacation when leftists cosplay the October revolution.
Great write-up, I am regular visitor of one’s blog, maintain up the nice operate, and It’s going to be a regular visitor for a long time.
help for poor Student in Pakistan
If anything the Rittenhouse case shows the need for more open carry and concealed carry with no permits laws. There are violent criminals, ex-cons, sexual predators out there ready to stalk you, attack you, rape you, or kill you. If they know people have a means of defense and the legal right to use it, they will think twice before attempting their criminal behavior. It sure worked in Florida with the car jacking that used to happen multiple times everyday. You don't hear about them anymore.
This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. best assignment writing services
As I recall, Adolph Hitler and Hugo Chavez also called for and eventually implemented “common sense gun safety reforms”.
I posted the following yesterday and predictably, but at odds with the name of this site ("Reason") was countered by some posting content but all expressing vile insults and extremes of hatred. This reflects poorly on libertarians and other commentators on this site and one wonders why - if there are in fact any posters here guided by reason - there is not self policing in the form of criticizing posters with whom you may agree, but who obviously have no respect for reason or for civilized behavior, including discussion among those who disagree. That is in fact the life blood of democracy.
As to my post, no one can refute the comments on AR 15s because they are cold hard facts, though I understand one can object to my belief that Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder, or my belief that guns like the AR 15 should be banned at least from open carry if not for ownership by private citizens. Again, here is my view and i welcome civil discussion.
"Rittenhouse should have been charged with manslaughter, not 1st degree murder. He's neither villain or hero but a stupid kid who should not have been walking around at night with a weapon designed specifically to kill humans efficiently, nor should he have been facing life in prison. I'm happy he didn't get that, but walking away free after essentially bringing dynamite to a volatile situation which then blew up deserved limited punishment.
As to AR15s and other weapons of this type, if allowed at all, they should not be allowed for open carry on our streets. They were designed specifically as killing machines for human targets which have the following design elements. They fire high speed rounds which produce damage to tissue and organs which can often not be treated effectively by doctors because they explode the body, including organs in proximity. The reason for this physics. Damage from rounds increase in a direct straight line result of weight increases, while increases from speed of the round are exponential. Secondly, the smaller rounds means less recoil, and thus more control by the shooter. Being high capacity and light semi-automatics add to the lethal mix. You can Google it and read what doctors who treat these type wounds have to say to confirm this. Unless we think Elon Musk and Bill Gates should be able to buy nuclear weapons, we all agree there should be limits on what private citizens should legally be allowed to own in the US. These weapons should not be among them, or at least be restricted and not allowed on our streets in open carry."
FOaD, asshole Joe.
He probably shouldn't be engaged. Unfortunately, if the country continues on this course, we will have to engage them outside of comment sections. I'm torn. If he goes unopposed, it looks like we can't make a point to some, when in fact we just don't care about the repetitive bullshit.
blah blah bah BS...
My grandfather’s Remington 7400 deer rifle in 30-06 can be fired just as rapidly, has "high capacity" magazines available, and fires a much more powerful round than the AR15 rifles you claim are so dangerous. It's not black, nor has a pistol grip, nor a collapsible stock, but it's definitely much more potentially lethal. Both the AR15 and the 742 have been around since the 1960's.
You simply don't know what your blathering on about...
Let me debunk this false narrative with reason:
"They were designed specifically as killing machines for human targets which have the following design elements..."
Your fallacy is that whatever you think it was designed for matters so much that you can restrict current users from using it the way they do right now. It does not make a difference what it was designed for in your opinion. The reality is that millions of responsible, adult Americans use it peacefully every day, like many other tools. It is one tool in the repertoire of a free society, even though authoritarians like you do not like it.
Private nuclear weapons? Name one case where a nuclear weapon has been used peacefully in a family event. Where people built nuclear weapons with their children to go to the range afterwards and have a good time plinking. Well, lol, maybe in North Korea at a family gathering of government officials. Do you trust governments so much more that you think THEY should have monopoly on nuclear?
Again, your fallacy, and it is a sneaky one, is that "what it was designed for" would matter in how it is being used in reality. The problem with some Americans that I learned is that they are too concerned with "what's that for? What are you supposed to do with this?". There are many perfectly reasonable uses for tools and things.
The fallacy you use appeals to very obedient types low in critical thinking, who think the alleged intention behind an object warrants restricting how it is being used peacefully by millions and millions every day. We oppose this because we have a brain. And ARs are very, very rarely used in homicides, it's almost always handguns used by felons. Gangster kills gangster is the most common scenario.
Using an AR to mass-shoot non-offending, innocent people is a deviant, repulsive use of it. Just like using a red SUV to run over people at a Christmas gathering. But neither are being used like this frequently in reality. And unfortunately for your side, such facts matter in the Supreme Court of this country.
ARs were designed to arm a country so it can protect its citizens. No moral individual would ever want to use it to shoot someone else if the deterrent effect is enough to end a conflict peacefully. Unfortunately, in reality, nobody takes you seriously without a sufficiently "big stick". Especially governments and unhinged, looting mobs.
5.56, what a tool is designed for indicates what it is good for, if designed well and no one would argue AR 15s and similar weapons featuring high velocity smaller caliber rounds were not good designs. Of course one can own one and not kill people and overwhelmingly that is the case. However, used against the target it is so well designed for leaves those targets with wounds often beyond treatment according to any doc who has to see those patients, and it's use by shooters in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Parkland, Pittsburgh, Daytona, and El Paso demonstrate it's utility for mass killings.
You are correct to note that the scary "look" - which a lot of people including Rittenhouse find cool - is not sufficient reason to ban them, however, their lethality is another story.
The following account is not unique:
"As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.
A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.
Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.
I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.
With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.
One of my ER colleagues was waiting nervously for his own children outside the school. While the shooting was still in progress, the first responders were gathering up victims whenever they could and carrying them outside the building. Even as a physician trained in trauma situations, there was nothing he could do at the scene to help save the victims who had been shot with the AR-15. Most of them died on the spot; they had no fighting chance at life.
As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, a movie theater, or a concert and to know that they are safe. Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active-shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door, and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
"You are correct to note that the scary "look" - which a lot of people including Rittenhouse find cool - is not sufficient reason to ban them, however, their lethality is another story."
Emotional bullshit appeals that will fortunately not impact a single court decision in this country. Again, the lethality is irrelevant in any use case that occurs millions of times every day in this country. You can give me an irrelevant list of cases where idiots used ARs to kill innocent people and I can give you a list of cases where cars were used to do the same. Cars are lethal too and can leave the target "beyond treatment".
It boils down to you not liking the design of the AR and that's why you want to ban it.
Again, ARs are very rarely used to kill innocent people and you ignore that and quote irrelevant and emotional Atlantic articles instead because you have no point.
"what a tool is designed for indicates what it is good for,"
Yes, it's good for plinking and having fun with the family. In a pinch, it might also be good for defending the country against tyrants and authoritarians.
"Of course one can own one and not kill people and overwhelmingly that is the case."
Good we agree on that. SCOTUS agrees too. Now keep your hands out of the lives of law abiding, responsible citizens who exercise their constitutional rights and find a better hobby. I've had it with this whining.
5.56, the 1st person experience of a doctor who knows what the results are of being shot with an AR 15 is a fact, not "emotional bullshit". You can find multiple accounts of this from other docs and you won't find any arguing with them.
I don't know what the "millions" of other uses are for AR 15s happening every day unless you mean sitting a a closet. Any kind of firearm can be fun for "plinking" with the family and any fantasies you may have about resisting "tyrants and authoritarians" have yet to occur and dollars to donuts won't. As to "militias'", the Constitution says the they will be funded by Congress and under the order of the President. To quote G Washington in 1776 (before the Constitution):
“I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.”
I support the right of the individuals in the above photograph to exercise their 2A rights - doesn't bother me at all that they are black - and I doubt it bothers many other conservatives either.
It probably greatly bothers the same liberal media hucksters that lied about Rittenhouse nonstop for over a year! Though they - the hucksters - probably do think it in some way intimidates white conservatives - to which we simply laugh! Unlike them - we are not terrified of a rifle - unless it's being pointed at us with intent.
money generating way, the best way of 2021 to earns even more than $15,000 every month online. start receiving more than $15k from this easy online job. i joined this 3 months ago and in my first month i made $12749 simply doing work for 2 hrs a day. join this right now by follow instructions mentioned on this web.
===>>............ Visit Here
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FUM And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW