Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
I agree to an extent. But it's off topic. My point is the court can't be right -- at least if they are it's not a world I want to occupy. Teenage vigilantes prowling around looking for threats. I'm good on that. They can't even drive safely.
If you follow what the Luci dude has said, he claims trans are Marxists, all Marxists should be killed, and people should strive to find legal ways to kill people like Rittenhouse.
Thats pretty ridiculous the way you say but true. These idiots watched too much Hunger games and now are braindead.
They are making him a hero now. Great parenting.
The essence of Luciom. Every thread is about Marxism and how we should strive to literally kill Marxists. You need help. Why is this allowed?
Yeah, he is even much more extreme and obnoxious than itshotinvegas who (only) got perma banned for explaining BLM or race theory was marxist.
A typical Republican talking point by i.e Petersen.
Yes pretty much what u said. But he had no reason to be there?
He broke the laws by being there with a an assault rifle, machine gun. So he should have been punished. Hero? LOL
More like an idiot who killed innocent people. What was he afraid of again? A skateboard?
He didn't which is why he didn't get any guilty verdict.
Anyway why are you people keeping this OT going?
He did. How old was he?
17? You cannot even buy that gun or any until youre 18 or 21? Nor can he own it or walk around with it or use it.
In italy he would get a life sentence or something and rightfully so.
He was not licenced or trained. Its like He stole a car and murdered someone with IT. AT age 13. An idiot.
I'm simply accurately saying he isn't a murderer. I'm not defending his actions either, showing up armed at any emotionally charged protest is like throwing petrol on fire. His actions were still legally self defence though.
Yes pretty much what u said. But he had no reason to be there?
He broke the laws by being there with a an assault rifle, machine gun. So he should have been punished. Hero? LOL
More like an idiot who killed innocent people. What was he afraid of again? A skateboard?
I don't think he actually did break any laws, bizarre as it sounds. As I said they've crazy gun laws over there.
He broke some laws its just the judge dropped the charges
judge dropped the charges because under state law minors can have a rifle if the Barrel is long enough, which it was (probably an exception wrote with hunting in mind, still it applied in the case as well as the charge was possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor).
I get it that a super leftist judge disregarding the law wouldn't have dropped the charge as it was possible to read it differently with enough bad faith, but unlucky for you guys Rittenhouse had a normal judge which applied the law as written and so was found non guilty and that's it.
judge dropped the charges because under state law minors can have a rifle if the Barrel is long enough, which it was (probably an exception wrote with hunting in mind, still it applied in the case as well as the charge was possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor).
I get it that a super leftist judge disregarding the law wouldn't have dropped the charge as it was possible to read it differently with enough bad faith, but unlucky for you g
The bad faith I see is you speaking like you have any authority in law
The statute was written to give a way for children to hunt legally. Unless you think he was there to commit pre-meditated murder (aka hunting humans) then you already know you are talking out your ass
The bad faith I see is you speaking like you have any authority in law
The statute was written to give a way for children to hunt legally. Unless you think he was there to commit pre-meditated murder (aka hunting humans) then you already know you are talking out your ass
sure you go against the decision of a judge but the bad faith is mine.
it might be that the exception was written to allow hunting, but if the way it was written applies to other situations, then it does apply to other situations.
sure you go against the decision of a judge but the bad faith is mine.
it might be that the exception was written to allow hunting, but if the way it was written applies to other situations, then it does apply to other situations.
I am not going against his decision. He dropped a misdemeanor in a case trying multiple homicide. Ultimately its a footnote.
But, law isn't infallible, its interpretable. Precedent gets set, precedent gets broken.
You even claimed a different judge could have interpreted it differently. I'm only challenging your assertion that to interpret it differently would require bad faith
try to bash my head in with a skateboard, youre getting shot. try to steal my gun, youre getting shot
Yes pretty much what u said. But he had no reason to be there?
He broke the laws by being there with a an assault rifle, machine gun. So he should have been punished. Hero? LOL
More like an idiot who killed innocent people. What was he afraid of again? A skateboard?
have you ever read the 2nd amendment? You try to bash my head in with metal at the end of wood, youre getting shot.
I am not going against his decision. He dropped a misdemeanor in a case trying multiple homicide. Ultimately its a footnote.
But, law isn't infallible, its interpretable. Precedent gets set, precedent gets broken.
You even claimed a different judge could have interpreted it differently. I'm only challenging your assertion that to interpret it differently would require bad faith
whats the case law say now? Prob something like, swing a skateboard at someones head who has a gun, youre getting shot
The bad faith I see is you speaking like you have any authority in law
The statute was written to give a way for children to hunt legally. Unless you think he was there to commit pre-meditated murder (aka hunting humans) then you already know you are talking out your ass
There was an issue with the barrel though no? I thought that was mentioned at trial?
We're looking for ways to legally kill our political opponents now, huh Luciom? Not a fascist at all, then.
No I am not asking anyone to murder any innocent in any setting.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing, I am advocating for legal lethal action when the law allows for it, while heinous crimes are being committed in flagrancy.
But yes you are right that's OT right now, so why did you dig it up? Let's move to the general thread if you want to keep discussing it but please abstain to invent absurd accusations like that I call for murder when I
This is not what was originally posted. It makes it look like I was upset for a lesser reason. Why should my post be edited? Both the original and my reply have been edited to remove saying we should murder a subset of trans who do gender theory.
It's progress. We're no longer openly calling for innocents to be killed now. Just guilty people as allowed by law. So, no one really. Unless you're rich and white ..
Rittenhouse (a hero that I hope will inspire a whole generation or more) went there on purpose to find a reason to kill Marxists, and he found a legal one, which is one of the most moral things a person can do with his life, legally killing Marxists.
Do you seriously believe that most of the people there were Marxists? Do you seriously believe that Kyle Rittenhouse would have been able to discern which people in the crowd were Marxists, and which people in the crowd were not Marxists? Do you seriously believe that one of the most moral (if not legal) things a person can do is shoot someone for believing in Marxism?
If you really believe all these things, then you are much more credulous person, and a much, much depraved person than I imagined.
I am not remotely close to being a Marxist, but this is completely batshit.
W T F
No I am not asking anyone to murder any innocent in any setting.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing, I am advocating for legal lethal action when the law allows for it, while heinous crimes are being committed in flagrancy.
You can walk back your original comment if you choose. Any remotely decent person would. But at least admit that's what you are doing.
Also, why are you equating morality with legality? If a state changed a statute to make it unlawful to stand your ground against a Marxist, would you then believe that it would be immoral to stand your ground?
