Current Events > Rittenhouse for his gun charges dropped.

(+) Yeah! (+)

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

So it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to go around patrolling and "protect" businesses that aren't their's with rifles, pointing them at people and threatening them as a deterrent?

There's only one right side to this situation no matter what your agenda or spin you want to put on this.

Defending rioters for any reason is pretty despicable. Not only that, but victim blaming Kyle too. You all have no shame.

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

So it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to go around patrolling and "protect" businesses that aren't their's with rifles, pointing them at people and threatening them as a deterrent?

These are the same that support jan 6.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

So it's perfectly reasonable for citizens to go around patrolling and "protect" businesses that aren't their's with rifles, pointing them at people and threatening them as a deterrent?

Pointing and threatening? No.
Everything else you said? Yes.

And that really shouldnt surprise anyone. Our country is built on community service and ordinary people looking out for each other. If somebody could stop an arsonist from burning down my business then Id certainly be grateful if they tried.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

At the end of the day, I just love how the right is trying to act like they care about justice, when every other case of a cop doing wrong, or a Trump supporter doing wrong (like Jan 6) gets excused and handwaved. You guys just like Kyle because hes a right wing kid who went to counter BLM protesters. You found a case where you can champion a guy like that because the law is on your side. Thats cool, but At least be man enough to admit that. Youre not concerned about justice.

and before anyone says it, Ive conceded long ago that Kyle will be innocent. I was wrong about the legality of the case. Doesnt mean I have to cheer for what he did, though.

your post made me realize, even the Charlottesville guy that ran over people with his car would be able to claim self defense under this new upcoming precedent. Scary


---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

your post made me realize, even the Charlottesville guy that ran over people with his car would be able to claim self defense under this new upcoming precedent. Scary

You know thats not true.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Alt Righters really alt righting this topic.

I would love to see their reaction when trump supporters get killed under self defense by someone being where they didn't belong.

Sure, just provide an example of it happening please :)

---

AssultTank posted...

No it's not, but based on the evidence presented in the trial, under oath, that didn't happen in this case.

I mean, evidence was presented that it happened at least one time!

---

BeyondWalls posted...

You know thats not true.

how not so?

he could say he was innocently driving, saw a mob, feared for his life and panicked and tried to drive away.

its obviously not the case, I am
saying I am afraid this case will set precedent for that kind of thing

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Sure, just provide an example of it happening please :)

example of alt righters alt righting in this topic? sure :
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/79760795/960055381

---

Tmaster148 posted...

These are the same that support jan 6.

Theyll say if someone did the same thing and killed someone on Jan 6th Id say the same thing!!!..yet they make excuses for Ashley Babbit.

---

AssultTank posted...

I direct you to post 312.
Here, I'll even quote it for you;

Then Im not talking about you.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Then Im not talking about you.

Who are you talking about? I mean exactly who are you talking about?

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Ok? Same scenario. I go to a trump rally with a gun and say fuck trump. A trump supporter attacks me (its happened a lot) I retreat and others follow after me. Im justified in shooting those following me?

It's sad that you think this is the same scenario.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

It's sad that you think this is the same scenario.

how is it a different scenario? Because its trump supporters in one of those? SMH

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

how is it a different scenario? Because its trump supporters in one of those? SMH

Because Kyle never provoked Rosenbaum or any of his other assailants, and Kyle made no ideological statements on that night as far as anyone is aware. He wasn't there to counter-protest, he was there to protect a business and provide aid to the protesters.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

ATF is a joke. They let bump-stocks and arm braces (Essentially illegally converts a non-SBR into an SBR or other illegal category) cruise around for months before doing anything about them, for instance. They are legitimately incompetent.

The fact that the gun community has turned "That's gonna get your dog shot" into a meme phrase for any sketchy looking accessory, and the fact that Waco happened tells you all you need to know about the ATF's enforcement of their regulations.

As to bump stocks, that's actually a result of interpreting the regulations completely literally. The ATF defines an automatic weapon as any firearm that is capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. The ATF also defines a trigger pull in such a way that you can have a trigger that fires a round on release as well as pull and it be legal. Anyway, a bump stock skates by because per the ATF's regulation, the trigger is actuated for each round fired, thereby not being actually automatic per the law. And yes, I'm aware that a bump stock creates quasi-automatic fire by using recoil to reset the trigger.

---

Lol this topic

---

Crazyman93 posted...

The fact that the gun community has turned "That's gonna get your dog shot" into a meme phrase for any sketchy looking accessory, and the fact that Waco happened tells you all you need to know about the ATF's enforcement of their regulations.

As to bump stocks, that's actually a result of interpreting the regulations completely literally. The ATF defines an automatic weapon as any firearm that is capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. The ATF also defines a trigger pull in such a way that you can have a trigger that fires a round on release as well as pull and it be legal. Anyway, a bump stock skates by because per the ATF's regulation, the trigger is actuated for each round fired, thereby not being actually automatic per the law. And yes, I'm aware that a bump stock creates quasi-automatic fire by using recoil to reset the trigger.

It isn't per trigger pull, it's per action of the trigger which is why binary triggers aren't considered machineguns. This also means those forced reset triggers aren't machineguns either, since by either interpretation you are pulling or causing another action of the trigger rapidly. Doesn't mean they don't try and act like its illegal, but their issue is they tried it against a company that's run by a lawyer.

---

Tropicalwood posted...

It isn't per trigger pull, it's per action of the trigger which is why binary triggers aren't considered machineguns. This also means those forced reset triggers aren't machineguns either, since by either interpretation you are pulling or causing another action of the trigger rapidly.

Thank you, my mistake. Either way, the ATF's own regulations are a labyrinthian nightmare to deal with if you want anything other than a deer gun or a pump action shotgun.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Because Kyle never provoked Rosenbaum or any of his other assailants, and Kyle made no ideological statements on that night as far as anyone is aware. He wasn't there to counter-protest, he was there to protect a business and provide aid to the protesters.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

We just had a huge trial with all the evidence we could find, if you disagree you can show me the evidence.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

We just had a huge trial with all the evidence we could find, if you disagree you can show me the evidence.

So every trial out there is fair and a trials size correlates to how closely it related to real life facts.

youre cute

---

Well the gun measurements were not proven then the law was not followed

---

skermac posted...

Well the gun measurements were not proven then the law was not followed

It's up to the prosecution to get those measurements.
Burden of proof always lies on the prosecution. That's court 101.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Because Kyle never provoked Rosenbaum or any of his other assailants, and Kyle made no ideological statements on that night as far as anyone is aware. He wasn't there to counter-protest, he was there to protect a business and provide aid to the protesters.

Being there to protect businesses was inherently a political statement that property is more valuable than lives. A statement that he confirmed his belief in when he murdered people that night.

---

I can't say I followed this story very well. I'm not sure what Rittenhouse was doing in the street that he was being chased after.

I often wonder if sometimes people with guns get themselves into trouble more often than they should were they not armed to begin with.

CommonGrackle posted...

I can't say I followed this story very well. I'm not sure what Rittenhouse was doing in the street that he was being chased after.

I often wonder if sometimes people with guns get themselves into trouble more often than they should were they not armed to begin with.

Well, when you have a hero complex and think the gun makes you invincible its bound to happen. Kyle thought he was a big man who could go there with a gun and save the world. Then reality slapped him in the face.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Then reality slapped him in the face.

Think it slapped the guys he smoked harder.

---

QueenCarly posted...

Being there to protect businesses was inherently a political statement that property is more valuable than lives. A statement that he confirmed his belief in when he murdered people that night.

Lmao, "Guys people should be allowed to destroy what they want when they're angry. And also beat a kid to death because he doesn't want stuff to be destroyed."

---

QueenCarly posted...

Being there to protect businesses was inherently a political statement that property is more valuable than lives. A statement that he confirmed his belief in when he murdered people that night.

Okay. To what kind of person is that a "provocation that justifies attempting to assault someone"? Would you say that's a reasonable person or an unreasonable person?

---

i'm not really against carrying guns at all, I just don't think it should give people some sense of entitlement

look to your own homes and don't be a hero

totalnerdken posted...

Can anyone actually PROVE Kyle provoked Rosenbaum? I say this because the prosecutor failed to prove this. He did say it in his closing statement like it was a fact, but at no point during the trial, did he manage to successfully prove this point. He tried too, but he wasn't able too.

well said. How do we know the bullet wounds killed him? It may have been food poisoning, or indigestion, maybe it was a dangerous mosquito bite


---

TheVipaGTS posted...

This is a clear example of why the law is dumb. They can straight up say yes its an AK style assault rifle, yes Kyle obtained it illegally, yes he killed two people with itbut we cant do anything because the barrel isnt long enough.

I think a bunch of brown people should get guns the exact same size in someone elses name and start patrolling the streets with them. Watch how everyones opinion changes on it.

Eh, if they used them purely for self-defense and only shot when necessary then I bet I guess we wouldnt have to worry about rioters' vandalism.