They attacked Kyle, iccarus. Because they thought he put out a fire one of them was trying to roll into a gas station. This is established fact. It was nothing to do with the rifle, actually the rifle would've convinced anyone sensible not to start shit. It didn't escalate anything, nor did Kyle. But you can't expect crazies with established violent histories to be sensible, huh?
And no, I'm not "full of shit" when I say cops have never responded negatively to me while I open carried. I've only carried openly where legal, and never started any kind of issues with anyone while doing it. Cops tend to not bother people who aren't breaking the law or causing issues.

Because it has no logical backing. It is your discredited claim alone. Kyle was picked out, nevermind other people being armed, including at least on of the assailants, were also armed. Nevermind that the vast majority of murder victims, especially in other riots, especially in other BLM riots, were unarmed.
You have no evidence. You are ignoring established fact. You are ignoring precedent. Your claim has the same validity as those idiots who thought a rally would resurrect Kennedy.

He could be bullied by Adolf Fucking Hitler, it doesn't matter in the least.
Actually, I'll prove it. I'll stand in public with my CC, you can find me and use whatever slur or creative threats you want. And I won't shoot you until you actively try to take my life.
Because that's the difference between a victim and an assailant. Whichever one attacks a person is the assailant.

Iccarus. It is not difficult to tell the difference between someone choosing to attack innocents, and an innocent who was forced to defend themselves from attackers.
This meme is "don't tread on me". Micro-dick Ethan decided to tread on others.

Jesus, you're still on that?
Now let's get one thing straight, heroes are anyone. Literally random people.
You can believe whatever you want. Out of numerous people, armed or otherwise, Kyle was threatened and then attacked numerous times that night. Not everybody else with a gun. He was even attacked BY someone with a gun. An illegal one at that.
And he didn't start the violence. He was attacked by people who have already been doing violence. Who already hurt people.
So I take back what I said earlier, you cannot believe whatever you want. Because you have been deliberately ignoring established facts, ignoring our responses, ignoring what has been happening all over the country at that time, and then lying to us who have actually bothered to follow and study the relevant case and issues.
You are wrong. Factually, legally, and morally.
We all see the sky is blue. Are you malicious or just delusional? Because I don't see what else your issue could be.

This reminded. I found some clubs nearby and I've been thinking about learning HEMA

Not my thing, but I do appreciate your knowledge

I don't care what you think you know, Snopes thinks for me!

What

I'd offer to let you tie me down, but thatguy has me nervous

I didn't insinuate anything. I said exactly what I mean.

I thought this sounded like a good idea. Thanks for thinking it through

With.... with the knife?

You said that "denying people their fair share" is an attack. I only agreed with you. Then you accused me of kicking "ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS out of society", and wrongly construed that I believe they have "no goods to provide or services to render". Additionally, you only really contributed to the conversation after we were talking about crimes and harm.
I'm alright with you throwing out strange insults and leaving the conversation. But don't try to tell us you didn't say what you said.

You weren't talking about the homeless or unemployed specifically. You were talking about people who are victims of theft or who have otherwise been attacked.
And I didn't exclude the homeless or unemployed in my response. If they have been victims of theft or broken contracts then their attackers should be made to pay restitution and punished according to whatever laws they broke.

Where did I say that?

Denying people their fair share is an attack? I agree entirely. All persons are entitled to whatever compensation or trade they agreed to for whatever good they provided or service rendered.
To take a thing or refuse to pay for a job done to specification is theft. I already said that addressing theft is one of the government's duties.

If they have been attacked, their attackers should be made to pay restitution and then be punished according to whatever laws were broken.
You should keep in mind that "not giving people stuff" is not an attack.
I do not care what Ghandi has to say about society. A government's purpose is to defend rights, enforce contracts, control borders, and otherwise fuck off.