You were wrong about the assault rifle reference. Also, that's a page from victim blaming 101. Kyle had just as much right to be there as Rosenbaum. However, Kyle wasn't reckless & looking for trouble. That would be Rosenbaum. Chances are, he would've attacked someone else.
Terrible analogy. Child walking down the street trying to be cool with a "long barreled" gun. Basically all that was missing was a sign asking to have his ass kicked. Would you want your child doing this?
Nobody knew his age. In the context of where he was, against a backdrop of scores of people openly armed with rifles and other firearms, he wasn’t particularly conspicuous. Nobody appeared to be alarmed or gave him a second look in the videos where he is seen walking along Sheridan Road with Balch.
WI is an open carry state & Kyle was amongst 100's of people who were similarly armed. There is no scenario where it's acceptable to attack someone for simply being armed. Additionally, there's no scenario where being armed forfeits your right to self defense.
I didnt know kids could open carry. This coming from the party that thinks kids seeing gay people makes them gay. But you are totally fine with kids going to riots with guns. Make it make sense.
"I didn't know kids could open carry" Thanks for admitting that you didn't follow the Rittenhouse trial. That said, what makes you qualified to comment on it?
You should make more declarative statements without evidence. Very maga of you.
Why are you bringing up politics in a discussion regarding self-defense? I haven't. Is that your way of deflecting from your failed arguments? If you didn't know about the opening carry laws in WI, you definitely didn't follow the Rittenhouse trial too closely.
On top of that I made a moral argument. And in that, I am 100% correct. You are using a legal loophole to conclude Rittenhouse was in the right.
You lose the moral argument as well. It's never immoral to defend yourself against unprovoked attacks while aiding your community. It figures that you would defend the criminals.
It wasnt his community. Lets be real. If he didnt care a gun like a dipshit he wouldnt be attacked. Thats dumb at best and certainly irresponsible. He created the conditions for the shootings. He wanted to be cool and walk down the road larping like a proud boy. It was morally wrong.
There was no evidence to suggest that Rosenbaum jumped Rittenhouse at 63rd just because he was carrying a rifle. Rosenbaum had already made threats to kill Rittenhouse or Ryan Balch if he caught either man alone, and had acted violently towards others at the Gas Station earlier.
Your argument is ridiculous. You're condoning an unprovoked attack on someone for being legally armed in an open carry state based on your personal beliefs regarding firearms.
Rittenhouse had a secondary residence in Kenosha with his dad. He also worked there & had extended family and friends who lived there too. He was in Kenosha on a daily basis. This was another point that was discussed during the trial.
Only someone so willfully ignorant to condone Rittenhouses actions, would be MAGA. I understand the laws better than you and it was intended for hunting. The exception wasnt intended for children going to riots. The judges misinterpretation of the law is the issue.
The judge did not misinterpret the law as it is currently written. Strictly interpreted, any person aged 16+ is not acting unlawfully by being in possession of a rifle or a shotgun, unsupervised. The judge could not just add a hunting requirement where none exists in the statute.
The amendment in its entirety was for hunting. The only reason for children having a gun ws for hunting. It wasnt for shooting someone that tossed a paper bag at you.
He shot Rosenbaum when he made a lunge to grab the rifle, not seconds earlier when he threw his hospital toiletries bag. The exception to WI s.948.60 is not so prescriptive as to require hunting specifically for it to be valid, regardless of its intent. That is the issue.
So if a judge were to interpret the second amendment and say its for militias and not individual use....Can u tell me what mental gymnastics youd be prepared to go through? Lets use ur logic to interpret the second amendment.
The judge interpreted the law strictly, to the wording of the statute. There is no wording in WI s.948.60 3(c) that mandates hunting as a requirement. The judge has no authority to add that requirement if it is not there in black and white.
Explain why there was an effort AFTER the trial to add an exception (3d). Legislators wanted to add "hunting only" to the exception for minors. This was a direct response to the Rittenhouse trial. That measure failed & today, the law remains as originally written. www.cbs58.com/news/democra...
I dont know if you are being dishonest, so ill humor you. 948.60 was originally intended as amendment to allow for hunting. Thats why shortbarrels werent allowed. I would say common sense....did you think they intended the law for children to go to riots?
Read the exceptions under 948.60 (3)(c). That's the exception that allowed Kyle to legally possess a long-barreled rifle. A SBR would've been illegal. The prosecution agreed & conceded.
How's this for making sense? Don't carry out an unprovoked attack on someone who is clearly armed. Sound reasonable? Nothing you've posted would've negated Kyle's right to self defense.