Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
No, but he was attacking Rittenhouse.
Like I said: If you weren't attacking Rittenhouse, you were in no danger from him.
Doesn't matter to the sycophants for the pigs. Might makes right for them. It's why they're able to look at all the mass shootings here and feel nothing.
"Careful with his weapon" would have been staying home with it and uninvolved.
Rittenhouse wouldn't have been attacked had he stayed home and uninvolved.
He recklessly endangered himself, and two people's lives were taken for his actions.
Same goes for the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse. They recklessly endangered themselves by charging at a FLEEING person with a gun, and lost their lives as a result.
If they would have stayed at home and didn't involve themselves, they would have been alive or uninjured.
Come on, you could have easily predicted that I'd turn that around on you.
"There's a CONSISTENT double standard I notice from a lot of people, and it really irritates me." - Aegix Drakan, who liked your post.
Only in America could someone claim with a straight face that illegally crossing state lines with a military-grade weapon that you have no license or training for, then open-carrying it at the site of a protest is "careful" or "responsible.."
Well remember to the gunphiles what a gun is. A gun isn't a tool, its their penis. Their manhood. You're only as good as your gun.
So him crossing over state lines to kill BLM protesters is careful and responsible gun ownership. He's using the gun in the way it was intended to be used - but down the other folk.
If he had stayed at home jerking it to pictures of a Colt .45, he wouldn't be using his gun carefully or responsibly, because no uppity nig-RIOTERS were being taught a lesson.
Rittenhouse looked pretty trained to me, seeing as how he was able to keep control of, and handle his weapon in A) A stressful situation, B) being hit, C) while on the ground. D) after running.
Probably can't do that without some form of training.
I can barely even aim in VR even while standing up.
That's not what happens at protests. That's what happens at riots. You're describing riots as protests to selectively defend people. Watch the videos. There's not an organized statement there. They aren't protesting anything. That's people running around the streets attacking and eventually shooting each other. That's not a protest.
Protests typically happen in the daylight for a reason. Protesters want to be seen. That's the point. Rioters want to cause havoc and get away with it. The shooter was a rioter. So were the victims. They were all there to cause havoc. That's a riot.
The person chasing the armed robber to disarm him sometimes should be arrested. Not for disarming an armed robber, but if they're another robber who happened to be there because the store was being mass looted, arrest them both! They're both robbers.
Bingo. That is the core problem of every person defending this murdering piece of shit.
Had he been? I never saw any evidence of that.
Unless you count "standing there... menacingly!" and just open carrying as "threatening", in which case, every police officer is threatening because they open carry.
One source says " Rittenhouse came to the demonstrations with a Smith & Wesson AR-15-style .223 caliber rifle with a 30-round magazine, the charges allege. "
One of many citations from this source compared 9mm, 10mm, and .40 calibers and then concluded “In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets."
That's not to say that his choice of weapon was the "safest possible thing", concerning penetration, but it doesn't seem like it's as bad as you make it out to be.
Also, the military hasn't used .223 in 40 years, so sure, we can call it "old military grade".
No, he wasn't. Not at any point. You clearly haven't seen the videos.
"George Floyd was high on drugs and resisted arrest"
Why stop at that line in the logic? If everyone's parents hadn't had sex and conceived these poeple, NONE of this would have happened, right?
I never said the rioters were not guilty of any wrong doing. But the situation was already an ongoing issue; let's grant that. Rittenhouse needlessly put himself into it and killed people. What double standard am I advocating?
If I go to the zoo, jump into the tiger pit and shoot and kill a tiger that's threatening me, who's more in the wrong: me or the tiger?
Exactly, that's why "But this wouldn't have happened if...." is a stupid argument when cause and effect aren't directly linked.
So don't make that argument by saying that "this wouldn't have happened if he had stayed home" or else you open yourself up to being one-upped.
You aren't advocating a double standard. The same can't be said for certain other people in this thread, however. You merely jumped in the middle of tangent between Aegix and I and got caught in the crossfire.
Not that this is some sort of competition, but how have you "one-upped" me? I've consistently linked cause and effect; it just depends on how macro or micro you view the circumstances. At the micro level, Rittenhouse was attacked and retaliated; he's a victim. On the macro level, y'know, the level that encompasses ALL the facts of the situation, Rittenhouse willingly and intentionally put himself, with zero authority, with a lethal weapon, into an already highly volatile situation, and wound up killing people; he's the culprit. I'm not saying this was murder in the first degree, but certainly reckless endangerment that cost people, good or bad, their lives, so manslaughter at least.
Dude left his house with an assault rifle, drove 20 miles to intentionally get into the thick of some serious shit that was way above his ability, pay grade and entirely outside of any realm of his authority. He WANTED violence and he got it. Now, we wait to see if he gets the justice he'd pretend to advocate.
EDIT: Come to think on it, seeing as he did leave the house with lethal intent (I mean, why else does someone tote an assault rifle into a riot?), There might be grounds for murder of SOME degree...
So, what we can conclude from your reasoning is that AR-toting militias should be free to invade American towns at their own whim and engage in public order activities on their own initiative. As disagreeing with them or interfering in their self-appointed policing should be viewed as reckless self-endangerment, people should obey the militia.
Congratulations. You have just constructed an argument for armed thugs to legally intimidate and (if resisted) kill the public.
I don't need to, you just need to recognize the flaw inherent in the argument, which you did by saying: "Why stop at that line in the logic? If everyone's parents hadn't had sex and conceived these poeple, NONE of this would have happened, right?"
Hah, "disagreeing". What a charitable take. So they merely disagreed with Rittenhouse so he gunned them all down.
It's always unfortunate when someone makes a very good point, but uses one wrong word or phrase and it allows someone to latch onto it with an "AHA!!! and completely ignore the rest of their point.
Yeah, sort of like how the point about attacking a fleeing person with a gun was ignored and was somehow turned into "AHA!! So you think that armed thugs should be given free reign!!!"
Very unfortunate.
- Status