Based on the arguement I've heard so far, by the mere fact that she possesses a gun we are now allowed to attempt to cave her skull in until she dies.
.
Although the 16 year old part may actually technically be illegal. I'm not 100% sure if the law said 16 or older or 17 or older
A place people tried to burn down in riots a year ago or so, and then shrieked bloody murder when they weren't allowed to kill a 17 year old via mob-justice
People are weird. Like I've probably driven further to go to work or shopping than Kyle did to reach Kenosha, but everyone cites the crossing state lines thing like it's some kinda ultimate gotcha
.
Grosskreuitz had to travel further to get to Kenosha.
.
.
Also: "anyone who disagrees with me is a racist" isn't actually the way racism works. No matter how many times you say it and click your heels, it won't open a magical portal to Nazis
@famousone actually interstate laws are racist, not for guns, but for weed. Now i'm not going to say weed hasn't hurt anyone, it has... it's hurt A LOT of people... due to interstate laws, not the plant itself.
completely different situation, this is in daylight, no one is rioting, and there are camera crews everywhere filming them.
questioned whether it was the smart thing to bring a rifle to a riot, yeah, without it, he would've been killed, but without it, he wouldn't have been targeted also.
yeah, heard the excuses before, if he had no gun, he'd be killed. why though? because all those other people that didn't have rifles were killed that night?
I'm saying, if he didn't bring a rifle, there would have been no confrontation where he had to defend himself.
You're still saying that the sight of a rifle encourages a person to attack. I've never known anyone in a reasonable state of mind to do that. I don't know why you think that's a normal thought. I don't expect you to explain as you refuse to but I'll state it again that your logic confuses me and I see no basis for it in reality.
If Kyle didn't have a gun Godzilla and Kong would have arrived to challenge Cthulu and Mr. Rogers to a chess game to decide the fate of the color purple.
See, iccarus. I can make up bogus claim with no relation to real life, too.
I mean, Rosenbaum had a history of attacking unarmed minors.
.
But we can pretend he was totally sane and rational, and the mob he travelled with was completely calm and peaceful, and none of them would have ever even thought to hurt a young kid running around putting out all the fires they set, if only that kid hadn't had a gun.
how many other people were attacked by Rosenbaum that night, or any other night during the riots?
@famousone the basic fact that you see no alternate outcome if Kyle didn't bring a rifle is disturbing, it's always "if he didn't bring a gun, he'd be dead". I disagree, the rifle showed he was challenging the rioters, so they challenged him. How many others were attacked, had guns pulled on them, that night, and shot dead?
How would ANY of us know if Rosenbaum did or didn't attack anyone? But we can pretend he didn't.
.
Grosskreuitz had a gun. Rosenbaum didn't try to kill him. Zaminski had a gun. Rosenbaum didn't take THAT as a challenge.
.
There were police with guns. Far as I know Rosenbaum didn't attack them.
.
Just Kyle.
.
You're arguing that you know the inner workings of the mind of a violent, mentally ill, rioting, arsonist pedophile. As if that's something predictable.
.
But you know what's funny? It doesn't matter if Rosenbaum "took it as a challenge." It's literally not his right to act on that in any way that puts anyone in harm's way.
.
Zaminski, either.
.
Being a rioter doesn't actually give you moral high ground over every other citizen on the planet
Grosskreuitz and Zaminksi and Rosenbaum were all rioting, and Kyle was trying to stop them.
you're still missing the point, would he have been attacked if he didn't have the rifle? everyone says if he didn't have it, he would be dead, but he wouldn't have been attacked either.
Kyle wasn't even trying to stop them. He went to Kenosha to help. He didn't confront anyone, he cleaned up graffiti, offered medical aid, and they decided to kill him when he put out a dumpster fire about to be pushed into a gas station.
At what part does his rifle use it's psychic power to force anybody to decide to kill him?
.
The only one missing anything here is you.
Your right iccarus. The few people watching this are set in their ways. If Kyle didn't have a rifle to protect a used car lot that night he wouldn't be a killer today
Yup. He would have been lured away and beaten to death by a racist, crazed, child-rapist who had singled him out as a target hours earlier. Or maybe just shot in the back of the head by that guy who fired the first shot. Or maybe he would have been on the wrong end of any jerk's boot or bludgeoned to death with no way to defend himself.
Do you think that people should bow to whatever violent mob wants to murder them? Do you think people should just bow down and watch helplessly while cities burn and good people's lives are destroyed? What do you want from him? What do you stand for? The right of mobs of violent criminals to be valued over the rights and lives of the innocent and the good?
Self defense is not a loophole. It's a human right, an extension of the right to life in the first place.
Kyle got justice. Arbury was just murdered in the street by asshole vigilantes. They're really playing the same role. Kyle was attacked by rioters and crazies the same way Arbury was attacked by vigilante retards. The difference? Only one of them had the means to defend themselves.
I literally address that issue repeatedly Iccarus. It's the part where I say you're claiming to know the inner workings of an unmedicated, violent, rioting child molester and the people he was with.
.
Even if you proclaimed to BE one yourself, you would not be able to guarantee what was going through Rosenbaum's head that night.
.
Rioters have literally attacked unarmed citizens before. That's actually pretty much all they do. Attack the property of unarmed citizens, and attack unarmed citizens themselves.
.
But you stand there like you can guarantee Kyle's life if he'd only not had a gun on him.
.
At the time he was attacked he had to drop a fire extinguisher iirc. He didn't have the gun brandished. He was putting out a fire.
.
You're sitting there guaranteeing to us that Rosenbaum and zaminski - or one of the many, many, many other lunatics out that night (many of whom had violent crimes in their rap sheets it turns out) would all have been like "welp, this kid don't have a gun, so we'll leave him be."
.
That's literally the words you're speaking unless I've missed something.
.
And you think a 17 year old white kid in the middle of a BLM riot should have banked on the peaceful tendencies of the arsonists, rapists, abusers, vandals, etc...
I would like to share an experience. In E/SE Texas, at the border of Louisiana, there is a state park... my friends and I (friends asian), went into a local gas station. The guy there tried to encourage us to go to a particular spot because "that's where teenagers hang out".... mind you we were all around 25 and just wanted to drink some beer, smoke so weed and fish in the morning. We went down to the docks, figuring we'd set up camp, and just move a little in the morning to find a good fishing spot and not disturb anyone. Not 20 min in the sheriff himself shows up. Jee, I wonder WHY that happened? The sheriff was cool, he just said pack it up before dawn after seeing our DLs.
edit: i was drunk typing and typos
yep, again, not that he had to defend himself, but bringing a rifle to a RIOT, where there was already a history of violence and destruction. Not the smartest thing to do, with a high chance of someone being shot or killed. Without the rifle, no one would have confronted him to begin with. That's my point, and the argument being "but he would've been killed", but he wouldn't have been attacked either.
"banked on the peaceful tendancies", I asked before, how many other unarmed people that weren't in the riot group, but there, were attacked and killed that night?
You literally cannot guarantee that he wouldn't have been attacked
.
And that's a pointless argument.
.
1) we have no idea how many people were attacked during those riots. Could have been dozens, could have been none. Likely somewhere in the middle. We'd have to assume they reported it, that anyone gave a damn, and then try to find it in the mounds of information related to Kenosha that night that all focuses on Kyle rittenhouse.
.
So, again. You have no idea about that. I have no idea about that. Feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you sleep at night I suppose.
.
2) it literally doesn't matter if anyone had been attacked prior to that. Kyle had never killed anyone prior to that, either. The car source people had probably never asked anyone to guard their businesses before that.
.
Most of the men involved had a history of violence. At least one - possibly two - were unmedicated.
.
You can't guarantee their behaviors that night. Literally no one can
Aaaaaaand to circle the merry-go-round for the 54th time, literally all of that is moot because in America, the country where this all takes place, you're still not allowed to try and kill someone just because you were rioting and they had a gun.
.
That's not how it works. If it were, literally all of Texas would be a warzone all of the time.
.
They don't have to like him having a gun. They just have to be in control of themselves. And if they can't do that, well then hopefully they next person they encounter is also a cop or a rittenhouse, because a person like that is too dangerous to be roaming freely on the streets
yes, i get that you're allowed to defend yourself, the point you're missing is, that if he decided it was a bad idea to bring a gun, nothing would have happened.
Threaten that if you catch him alone you will kill him, and when you spot him while he's going to put out a fire, chase after him, fling your bag at him, and try to take his gun. Open carry obviously has lawful precedent that you can legally murder or seriously harm someone if you happen to spot a firearm on their person.
Just ignore iccarus. It's clear he will never accept that rape is never the victim's fault. He thinks that skirts, seatbelts, and fire extinguishers are the root of assault, crashes, and arson. There's no conversation to have with him after this many weeks of him maintaining his baseless fantasy and passing it off as holy writ or indisputable fact.
"the point you're missing is, that if he decided it was a bad idea to bring a gun, nothing would have happened"
.
No, mate. Literally addressed that point ad nauseum.
.
It's in the part where I say you literally cannot guarantee anyone's state of mind that night, especially the mentally unstable and unmedicated. No matter how many times you repeat it.
.
Your hindsight prediction is a theory presented as fact.
yes of course @famousone, cause that's what you think. stupid fking comparison.
the whole argument is that without the gun, he'd be dead, cause there were so many being assaulted and killed before kyle shot them dead. I just asked how many, yet, still waiting on an answer.
they stood out, and became the focus for those rioting. how is it that no one sees that? really, is it so far fetched that there could have been no other outcome that he'd be dead if he didn't bring a rifle, you cannot see that maybe nothing would have happened?
Did you know that what pissed off the mob is when Kyle stopped them from blowing up a gas station? And that he had been targeted by at least one of his assailants hours before the mess?
If you refuse to educate yourself I can deal, but for over a week now you've steadfastly ignored others trying to educate you.
Emergency personnel were hospitalized, arson was widespread, the city was under siege. And they tried to kill Kyle. When he did nothing wrong, only doing good that night. Cleaning messes, defending locals and their livelihoods, putting out fires, rendering medical aid to ANYBODY who needed it that he could help.
Just stop, you've already outed yourself as the kind of "man" who would rather watch a city burn and lives destroyed than see someone, anyone, try to do good in the face of murderous mobs running rampant across the entire country.
*taps mic* is this thing on?
.
Because I've literally addressed THAT part, too, iccarus, and you're acting like I didn't.
.
So at this point I just have to assume you're deliberately ignoring my responses
so no one else was targeted, except the young kid with a rifle? interesting
honestly i missed that response. if you said lots were attacked and killed, then i'd say ok, if none, then still be interesting.
You're asking a question that can't be definitively answered and still ignoring ours. I give up. You've clearly closed your mind to anything outside of what you already decided happened and didn't happen.
actually it's a fairly simple question, how many unarmed people were attacked and killed prior to Kyle shooting dead two people?
you're all saying without his rifle, he would have been attacked and killed regardless, so that means that others were attacked and killed also that were unarmed, I'm asking how many. I couldn't find any reports, so I'm asking.
Literally answered. Repeatedly.
.
But hey, a police officer was hit so hard during those protests he was knocked unconscious. .
A 71 year old man was beaten so badly his jaw was broken. He was armed with a fire extinguisher.
.
Fun fact about self defense laws in the US:
Your life doesn't actually have to be in danger for them to take effect. If you are in reasonable fear of suffering extreme physical injury, self-defense still applies.
.
Head injuries can very easily kill a person or cause an number of other injuries.
.
That's just what I could dig up now. That doesn't include injuries not covered by the media, or injuries not reported at all.
Those riots caused billions in damage. Dozens of businesses were destroyed.
.
They were an act of violence, the extent of which we'll never fully know.
.
This fairytale world you're weaving is not the reality that the people in those cities lived
ok, answer again, without the rant.
How many were assaulted and killed before kyle shot and killed them?
Must have been lots if you think that without his rifle, he would have been targeted regardless.
So, how many? 1, 5, 20?
You really don't like listening do you? "But hey, a police officer was hit so hard during those protests he was knocked unconscious. .
A 71 year old man was beaten so badly his jaw was broken. He was armed with a fire extinguisher."
Should I come over and read that to you? She already stated there was these incidents.
"That's just what I could dig up now. That doesn't include injuries not covered by the media, or injuries not reported at all."
Should I rent a billboard as well? Get your head out of your ass. I wasn't frustrated before but now that you're just blatantly being an ass and obviously willfully being ignorant I'm not talking about this with you.
You need to consider the history of BLM riots, too. Dozens dead, hundreds wounded, countless livelihoods destroyed, billions in damages. A lot of people crippled for life, brains splattered on the road, a man executed in the street for looking "like a Trumper".
Kyle only fired on the people who chased him down and actively tried to take his life away. He did nothing wrong. He was helping a community under attack, his own, and rendering aid to anyone who wanted it. Even if they set the fires he was fighting.
If you had no interest in having a discussion you should have just said so from the beginning.
.
Asking questions, then putting your fingers in your ears and screaming when you don't like the answers, and then claiming no one ever answered you is behaviour I'd have expected from a good many people on this website, but not you.
.
What a colossal waste of existence this pretend attempt at dialogue has been
not a discussion, was plain and simple question, during this riot, how many unarmed people had guns pulled on them and subsequently killed.
The whole thing with Kyle is I said, without bringing a rifle, he wouldn't have been targeted. But that's wrong, because I'm told he would still have been, because there were others, well, that's the only way to say he would have been targeted without a rifle is that there were others that were shot in the head. I saw no other articles regarding that. So, to make it simple, during this particular riot, not the history, or you can go on to all the lynchings in the past, was anyone killed prior to Kyle shooting three people?
You did say that. You've been saying that. And it is both disgusting for the implication that a victim should be blamed for being prepared to save themselves, and entirely baseless.
Then, in this case, they are cowards or monsters. The same who would blame a man for being robbed, or justify leaving a child to be raped because "they shouldn't have been there". They would forsake a woman for having a weapon instead of being home before dark or accepting that the actions of others are actually her fault.
The world they see is one that is wrong and must be torn down.
I've said my piece.
A few posts back.
Someone has to help represent the rest of the country and how we believe Kyle was in the wrong. It's just us in here now. No one else is following this post or having this debate under this post.
It's amusing how aggressive you few people get. I've not said anything personal about any of you. Only expressing my different opinion
Morally as well.
And that any portion of the country is so adamant as keep attacking a kid who had to defend himself, or even the mere concept of self-defense, is wrong. And cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.
The facts are against you. The law is against you. Basic human rights are against you.
At the end of the day you are entitled entirely to your opinion, Tpow. As is Iccarus.
.
At the end of the day the difference seems to be (if I'm understanding correctly):
.
You believe someone possessing a gun in a public area is an act of aggression on other people, and if those people attack you as a result, the consequences are your own fault
.
I believe possession of a gun in public may make other people uncomfortable, but their discomfort in no way gives them any right to try and kill you over it
.
.
There's not really much else to be said about it at this point as far as I can see
It's still the question of bringing a rifle to a riot with a history of property damage and arson. Do you think it was the right thing to do? Because no one else was targeted, only the one with a rifle standing in the middle of the street.
It's never been a topic of self defence, but the issue of bringing the rifle in the first place. Comparing that to "miniskirts" is only made by the dumbest of the dumb.
He's not a victim. Might as well bring a rifle to school and when authorities question you, and the will, you're the victim.
and some random citizen is not the hero either.
you firmly believe without the rifle, he would have been killed no matter what, mainly due to the dozens of unarmed people shot in the head prior, on that night, in that city.
I believe, without the rifle, he would not have stood out in the crowd and ignored like everyone else.
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.
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.
and you have no evidence either, that without a rifle, he would not have been picked out, the rifle caused an escalation in a confrontation, it didn't diminish it.
Besides, I already know you're full of shit, you discredited your self when you said you can carry a rifle in public and the cops don't question it. You stated they "admire" your gun. Sure, the police see someone in public with a rifle, and go up and say 'nice gun" and keep going, cause that's what cops do.
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.
No, I won't show you my face. I won't show you where I live. And no, I would not be carrying anyplace where it is illegal to carry. And no, I don't have to prove that the police won't question me, because I never claimed they wouldn't. Only that they have reacted in the past with nothing worse than professional neutrality.
.
That particular riot in that particular night? The only people who died were those who tried to kill Kyle after he stopped them from blowing up a gas station. Not that it matters. Shots were fired by persons other than Kyle prior to his incident. People were hospitalized by violent assailants that night entirely seperate from the people who tried to murder Kyle.
And in near identical riots all over the nation unarmed people were brutalized and murdered. That's half the reason riots aren't protected protest. Try to move the goal posts all you want, you're wrong. The only question is if it's ignorance or malice. And I'm almost certain you're not that stupid.
Since the 3 of us are still here. Where is the line between kids bringing a gun to school vs a public crowd of people. Is it in the 2nd amendment to not bring a semi automatic rifle into a group of children vs a group of adults?
The most recent shooting at a school was a 15 year old claiming self defense. Where's the line between 15 and 17 taking a gun somewhere they definitely shouldn't.
You're begging the question. The difference is premeditated murder vs self-defense. Age has no bearing, location has no bearing. That isn't even a constitutional question, as even prohibited persons are still able to claim self-defense if they use a gun. They would still be prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm (unless the DA would rather make a political statement than see actual justice), but legitimate self-defense clears murder.
But this is nothing you couldn't Google. I'm just happy to point out your fallacies and ignorance of the law.
wow, downvote someone for asking a question.
as for the night in question, so no one was assaulted and killed, and no one was carrying a rifle openly.
So it could be safe to assume that without the rifle, nothing would have happened.
Of course you won't go carrying a rifle openly to prove your point, because you'll get pulled over and questioned rather quickly, and not the cops saying "nice gun" and walking away.
I do know this, you can't convince me that there was no alternative to bringing a rifle. I can't convince you that without it nothing would have happened.
Yes, he had a right to carry a rifle, doesn't make it right though.
Just like if a woman slaps me in the face, I have the right to punch her, as hard as i want with a closed fist, is it in my right to defend myself, of course. Should I punch a woman with a closed fist knowing full well it will most likely permanently maim her?
Goddamn you're denser than lead, and about as good at reading.
Other people did have rifles. Other people were gravely assaulted. These groups do not overlap, to my knowledge.
I have taken weapons out in public before, and I'll probably do it again, but you have no right or privilege to demand video, especially not to demand I take a weapon anyplace where it isn't legal like a school or government building.
And no, you do not have the right to punch a women who slaps you, unless she maintains an active assault against your wellbeing. Otherwise you have the right to march your happy ass to the police station and press charges.
What is actually wrong with your brain?
I would gladly change my position in the face of actual evidence, your inability to provide any evidence, or even consider facts that disagree with you, is your failing alone.
I just don't see how events would "not have changed" if he didn't bring a rifle, you firmly believe that the outcome was inevitable whether he had a rifle or not. I say differently, you know, two separate people have two separate beliefs. What world do you live in where all agree. You obviously are not in a relationship, as you can't be based on what you've said previously, and it shows.
@typow777 I can unfollow comments, but i can also just get on with life. I'm actually having fun as anything said is easier than a bullied teen pulling the trigger
@iccarus How about you stay on topic instead of taking personal shots at people? You're being a complete asshole and I've lost all respect for you due to that comment. Next time keep your mouth shut and practice some level of respect.
.
Although the 16 year old part may actually technically be illegal. I'm not 100% sure if the law said 16 or older or 17 or older
What if I told you those two came from California?
.
Grosskreuitz had to travel further to get to Kenosha.
.
.
Also: "anyone who disagrees with me is a racist" isn't actually the way racism works. No matter how many times you say it and click your heels, it won't open a magical portal to Nazis
questioned whether it was the smart thing to bring a rifle to a riot, yeah, without it, he would've been killed, but without it, he wouldn't have been targeted also.
I'm saying, if he didn't bring a rifle, there would have been no confrontation where he had to defend himself.
See, iccarus. I can make up bogus claim with no relation to real life, too.
.
But we can pretend he was totally sane and rational, and the mob he travelled with was completely calm and peaceful, and none of them would have ever even thought to hurt a young kid running around putting out all the fires they set, if only that kid hadn't had a gun.
@famousone the basic fact that you see no alternate outcome if Kyle didn't bring a rifle is disturbing, it's always "if he didn't bring a gun, he'd be dead". I disagree, the rifle showed he was challenging the rioters, so they challenged him. How many others were attacked, had guns pulled on them, that night, and shot dead?
.
Grosskreuitz had a gun. Rosenbaum didn't try to kill him. Zaminski had a gun. Rosenbaum didn't take THAT as a challenge.
.
There were police with guns. Far as I know Rosenbaum didn't attack them.
.
Just Kyle.
.
You're arguing that you know the inner workings of the mind of a violent, mentally ill, rioting, arsonist pedophile. As if that's something predictable.
.
But you know what's funny? It doesn't matter if Rosenbaum "took it as a challenge." It's literally not his right to act on that in any way that puts anyone in harm's way.
.
Zaminski, either.
.
Being a rioter doesn't actually give you moral high ground over every other citizen on the planet
you're still missing the point, would he have been attacked if he didn't have the rifle? everyone says if he didn't have it, he would be dead, but he wouldn't have been attacked either.
At what part does his rifle use it's psychic power to force anybody to decide to kill him?
.
The only one missing anything here is you.
Do you think that people should bow to whatever violent mob wants to murder them? Do you think people should just bow down and watch helplessly while cities burn and good people's lives are destroyed? What do you want from him? What do you stand for? The right of mobs of violent criminals to be valued over the rights and lives of the innocent and the good?
Kyle got justice. Arbury was just murdered in the street by asshole vigilantes. They're really playing the same role. Kyle was attacked by rioters and crazies the same way Arbury was attacked by vigilante retards. The difference? Only one of them had the means to defend themselves.
.
Even if you proclaimed to BE one yourself, you would not be able to guarantee what was going through Rosenbaum's head that night.
.
Rioters have literally attacked unarmed citizens before. That's actually pretty much all they do. Attack the property of unarmed citizens, and attack unarmed citizens themselves.
.
But you stand there like you can guarantee Kyle's life if he'd only not had a gun on him.
.
At the time he was attacked he had to drop a fire extinguisher iirc. He didn't have the gun brandished. He was putting out a fire.
.
.
That's literally the words you're speaking unless I've missed something.
.
And you think a 17 year old white kid in the middle of a BLM riot should have banked on the peaceful tendencies of the arsonists, rapists, abusers, vandals, etc...
edit: i was drunk typing and typos
.
And that's a pointless argument.
.
1) we have no idea how many people were attacked during those riots. Could have been dozens, could have been none. Likely somewhere in the middle. We'd have to assume they reported it, that anyone gave a damn, and then try to find it in the mounds of information related to Kenosha that night that all focuses on Kyle rittenhouse.
.
So, again. You have no idea about that. I have no idea about that. Feel free to pretend otherwise if it helps you sleep at night I suppose.
.
2) it literally doesn't matter if anyone had been attacked prior to that. Kyle had never killed anyone prior to that, either. The car source people had probably never asked anyone to guard their businesses before that.
.
Most of the men involved had a history of violence. At least one - possibly two - were unmedicated.
.
You can't guarantee their behaviors that night. Literally no one can
.
That's not how it works. If it were, literally all of Texas would be a warzone all of the time.
.
They don't have to like him having a gun. They just have to be in control of themselves. And if they can't do that, well then hopefully they next person they encounter is also a cop or a rittenhouse, because a person like that is too dangerous to be roaming freely on the streets
.
No, mate. Literally addressed that point ad nauseum.
.
It's in the part where I say you literally cannot guarantee anyone's state of mind that night, especially the mentally unstable and unmedicated. No matter how many times you repeat it.
.
Your hindsight prediction is a theory presented as fact.
the whole argument is that without the gun, he'd be dead, cause there were so many being assaulted and killed before kyle shot them dead. I just asked how many, yet, still waiting on an answer.
they stood out, and became the focus for those rioting. how is it that no one sees that? really, is it so far fetched that there could have been no other outcome that he'd be dead if he didn't bring a rifle, you cannot see that maybe nothing would have happened?
If you refuse to educate yourself I can deal, but for over a week now you've steadfastly ignored others trying to educate you.
Just stop, you've already outed yourself as the kind of "man" who would rather watch a city burn and lives destroyed than see someone, anyone, try to do good in the face of murderous mobs running rampant across the entire country.
.
Because I've literally addressed THAT part, too, iccarus, and you're acting like I didn't.
.
So at this point I just have to assume you're deliberately ignoring my responses
honestly i missed that response. if you said lots were attacked and killed, then i'd say ok, if none, then still be interesting.
you're all saying without his rifle, he would have been attacked and killed regardless, so that means that others were attacked and killed also that were unarmed, I'm asking how many. I couldn't find any reports, so I'm asking.
.
But hey, a police officer was hit so hard during those protests he was knocked unconscious. .
A 71 year old man was beaten so badly his jaw was broken. He was armed with a fire extinguisher.
.
Fun fact about self defense laws in the US:
Your life doesn't actually have to be in danger for them to take effect. If you are in reasonable fear of suffering extreme physical injury, self-defense still applies.
.
Head injuries can very easily kill a person or cause an number of other injuries.
.
That's just what I could dig up now. That doesn't include injuries not covered by the media, or injuries not reported at all.
.
They were an act of violence, the extent of which we'll never fully know.
.
This fairytale world you're weaving is not the reality that the people in those cities lived
How many were assaulted and killed before kyle shot and killed them?
Must have been lots if you think that without his rifle, he would have been targeted regardless.
So, how many? 1, 5, 20?
A 71 year old man was beaten so badly his jaw was broken. He was armed with a fire extinguisher."
Should I come over and read that to you? She already stated there was these incidents.
"That's just what I could dig up now. That doesn't include injuries not covered by the media, or injuries not reported at all."
Should I rent a billboard as well? Get your head out of your ass. I wasn't frustrated before but now that you're just blatantly being an ass and obviously willfully being ignorant I'm not talking about this with you.
Kyle only fired on the people who chased him down and actively tried to take his life away. He did nothing wrong. He was helping a community under attack, his own, and rendering aid to anyone who wanted it. Even if they set the fires he was fighting.
.
Asking questions, then putting your fingers in your ears and screaming when you don't like the answers, and then claiming no one ever answered you is behaviour I'd have expected from a good many people on this website, but not you.
.
What a colossal waste of existence this pretend attempt at dialogue has been
The whole thing with Kyle is I said, without bringing a rifle, he wouldn't have been targeted. But that's wrong, because I'm told he would still have been, because there were others, well, that's the only way to say he would have been targeted without a rifle is that there were others that were shot in the head. I saw no other articles regarding that. So, to make it simple, during this particular riot, not the history, or you can go on to all the lynchings in the past, was anyone killed prior to Kyle shooting three people?
The world they see is one that is wrong and must be torn down.
A few posts back.
Someone has to help represent the rest of the country and how we believe Kyle was in the wrong. It's just us in here now. No one else is following this post or having this debate under this post.
It's amusing how aggressive you few people get. I've not said anything personal about any of you. Only expressing my different opinion
And that any portion of the country is so adamant as keep attacking a kid who had to defend himself, or even the mere concept of self-defense, is wrong. And cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.
The facts are against you. The law is against you. Basic human rights are against you.
.
At the end of the day the difference seems to be (if I'm understanding correctly):
.
You believe someone possessing a gun in a public area is an act of aggression on other people, and if those people attack you as a result, the consequences are your own fault
.
I believe possession of a gun in public may make other people uncomfortable, but their discomfort in no way gives them any right to try and kill you over it
.
.
There's not really much else to be said about it at this point as far as I can see
It's never been a topic of self defence, but the issue of bringing the rifle in the first place. Comparing that to "miniskirts" is only made by the dumbest of the dumb.
He's not a victim. Might as well bring a rifle to school and when authorities question you, and the will, you're the victim.
you firmly believe without the rifle, he would have been killed no matter what, mainly due to the dozens of unarmed people shot in the head prior, on that night, in that city.
I believe, without the rifle, he would not have stood out in the crowd and ignored like everyone else.
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.
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.
Besides, I already know you're full of shit, you discredited your self when you said you can carry a rifle in public and the cops don't question it. You stated they "admire" your gun. Sure, the police see someone in public with a rifle, and go up and say 'nice gun" and keep going, cause that's what cops do.
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.
How many people were killed prior to Kyle's shooting in that riot, on that night?
.
That particular riot in that particular night? The only people who died were those who tried to kill Kyle after he stopped them from blowing up a gas station. Not that it matters. Shots were fired by persons other than Kyle prior to his incident. People were hospitalized by violent assailants that night entirely seperate from the people who tried to murder Kyle.
And in near identical riots all over the nation unarmed people were brutalized and murdered. That's half the reason riots aren't protected protest. Try to move the goal posts all you want, you're wrong. The only question is if it's ignorance or malice. And I'm almost certain you're not that stupid.
The most recent shooting at a school was a 15 year old claiming self defense. Where's the line between 15 and 17 taking a gun somewhere they definitely shouldn't.
But this is nothing you couldn't Google. I'm just happy to point out your fallacies and ignorance of the law.
as for the night in question, so no one was assaulted and killed, and no one was carrying a rifle openly.
So it could be safe to assume that without the rifle, nothing would have happened.
Of course you won't go carrying a rifle openly to prove your point, because you'll get pulled over and questioned rather quickly, and not the cops saying "nice gun" and walking away.
Yes, he had a right to carry a rifle, doesn't make it right though.
Just like if a woman slaps me in the face, I have the right to punch her, as hard as i want with a closed fist, is it in my right to defend myself, of course. Should I punch a woman with a closed fist knowing full well it will most likely permanently maim her?
Other people did have rifles. Other people were gravely assaulted. These groups do not overlap, to my knowledge.
I have taken weapons out in public before, and I'll probably do it again, but you have no right or privilege to demand video, especially not to demand I take a weapon anyplace where it isn't legal like a school or government building.
And no, you do not have the right to punch a women who slaps you, unless she maintains an active assault against your wellbeing. Otherwise you have the right to march your happy ass to the police station and press charges.
What is actually wrong with your brain?