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.

So he said

It was Ryan Balch who testified that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill either of them if he caught them alone. When Rosenbaum went to grab the rifle, was it unreasonable of Rittenhouse to believe that his threat was actually serious?

Considering Rosenbaum's earlier behavior, do you doubt those threats?

Eyewitness testimony. JoAnn Fiedler.

Eyewitness testimony. Ryan Balch.

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.

Is that Thomas Clair Binger in the profile picture?

Lol. I just noticed that. 😂 Quite the resemblance.

Yeah im just better looking.

Hes a child. He cant fight. He cant vote. Yet hes allowed to go to a riot with a gun? Even tho the law was meant for hunting?

The hunting requirement doesn't include 16+. That's the law. Like it or not.

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.

Do you think the law was intended for a 17 yr old to have a gun at a riot? Just curious.

No, but you cannot enforce the law where it provides an exception for persons over the age of 16 in simple possession of a rifle or a shotgun just because you believe the use was not in the spirit of the statute. An attempt to add a hunting caveat to s.948.60 in the wake of the shootings failed.

Because republicans are horrible people, yes. They want more children to die, I guess. If i were on the jury, id have convicted or it would have been hung. Hes lucky.

That is a wider argument than whether his possession of the rifle was unlawful or not. Your verdict is your prerogative of course. I would have acquitted him on all charges, as his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable.

True to the letter of the law ignoring the nuance. Its funny how maga is letter of the law when they like a decision, but ignore the outcome or disagree when dislike it. AKA EJC case. AKA falsifying business records. The fact of the matter is, Rittenhouse created the conditions for the event.

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.

So im guessing ur fine with Trump being convicted of rape in the the EJC case. He was found guilty by his peers and the judge on case law. He penetrated her vagina with his fingers against her will. Proven. Convicted. 9 jurors unanimously convicted him..

Lol. Despite all the sources I've posted, you still believe that Kyle wasn't legally armed. Why would I get into a political debate with you? You're not interested in an honest discussion. That much is obvious.

No he was legally armed according to the law. He should not have been armed. The case law was written for hunting, not for riots. Sure its poorly worded, but it is a loophole and you damn well know it. Since you are so hard core on interpretation of the law, whats your thoughts on the 2nd amend?

Except, that "loophole" was reviewed & there was an effort to modify it. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written. Under these circumstances, we can't refer to this as a "loophole" anymore.

Yup the exception was for hunting as the writers of the legislation came out and said

No. They wanted to add that exception (3d) to include all minors. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written.