This entire thread leads me to ask - Please remind me how it makes America a better place to live in that people can wander round the streets with loaded guns, just whenever they think it might be a good idea.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
This entire thread leads me to ask - Please remind me how it makes America a better place to live in that people can wander round the streets with loaded guns, just whenever they think it might be a good idea.
If you don't mind, I'd like to reply with a rhetorical question. Where was Law Enforcement?
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
Hopefully something good will come from all of this. Perhaps more anti-vigilate laws should be passed to make situations like less likely. A stipulation in the existing law would be nice. Something like carrying a firearm illegally is a felony that carries harsher punishment if resulting in loss of life.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
This entire thread leads me to ask - Please remind me how it makes America a better place to live in that people can wander round the streets with loaded guns, just whenever they think it might be a good idea.
There are lots of things that you are permitted to do that do not make America a better place.
I don't particularly like the evangelicals wandering around with a megaphone on campus, I don't think they're making America a better place, yet I understand they have that right and I must tolerate it.
As soon as those people with guns start shooting people, well, you get trials just like this.
I’m still trying to figure out what the prosecution believes it can get to stick ref charges.
- Doc
Definitely not illegal to carry a long gun in this situation, right? But, maybe problematic for claiming a defensive purpose as it seems inappropriate … unless one intended to hole up somewhere and take shots from a distance, in which case it’s hard to argue that other protesters hundreds of yards away posed a serious enough threat to one’s life to require firing at them from that distance. Attempting to disable or merely injure isn’t legal, so the shooter would be shooting to kill without strong cause, if at distance.
Small arms would seem more appropriate for the task. They don’t guarantee your safety through distance as a long gun would, but one would be able to better size up the immediate threat to determine if firing would be required, while not being forced to essentially carry a long gun as a defensive EDC.
I don’t know the finer points of this. Your own military experience would provide better insight. But the idea that Rittenhouse packed a long gun to go to a protest to arguably defend random properties seems problematic. I understand that this is not what the argument in court is, but still… weird.
Have you followed the trial? I'm just curious about that.
In any case, if I were KR and had a choice between a pistol and an AR-15, I'd have chosen the AR. He entered a chaotic situation, the weapon was right on his person and he could easily get off whatever shots he needed (close or far range) rapidly.
And he did.
I have to go. You people are sucking me right in.
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
Hopefully something good will come from all of this. Perhaps more anti-vigilate laws should be passed to make situations like less likely. A stipulation in the existing law would be nice. Something like carrying a firearm illegally is a felony that carries harsher punishment if resulting in loss of life.
Maybe would should start buy teaching progressives not to chase a guy who's armed with a long gun.
I have. I linked to a few back in the other thread.
So, what’s your take vis a vis his being attacked and his defending himself?
- Doc
And this is what the trial is about. Did Rittenhouse act reasonably considering his circumstances.
On the face of it, he has a right to defend himself. What I can’t speak to is how strongly he may have believed that he was going to die unless he started firing, or how he ended up running from a crowd to begin with. I thought that at one time he was caught on video walking towards a larger crowd prior to that point (‘the action’) with rifle in hand. Is it reasonable for some folks in that crowd to have perceived Rittenhouse as a threat somewhere along that timeline, and given chase?
Hopefully something good will come from all of this. Perhaps more anti-vigilate laws should be passed to make situations like less likely. A stipulation in the existing law would be nice. Something like carrying a firearm illegally is a felony that carries harsher punishment if resulting in loss of life.
Maybe would should start buy teaching progressives not to chase a guy who's armed with a long gun.
But it’s OK to walk into a riot carrying one, of course. Because nothing can go wrong in that scenario. ; )
He was asked on the stand why he didn't bring a handgun rather than a rifle and he said he didn't think he could legally carry a handgun since he was younger than 18 at the time.
