The persons Rittenhouse shot were all criminal felons with records...

T. A. Gardner said:
0b4478044be1d5a0fa9548d609001af738ac6ec5aae76305693ce61dc09bbf7f.jpg
Click to expand...

At least you finally admit you are a fascist.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem for the Left is that they are lousy shots and usually poorly trained in the use of firearms. Whatever you want to say about Rittenhouse, the kid knew how to use that rifle. Grosskreutz didn't know how to use his pistol. You can see that on the videos. I'd say this is not uncommon for whatever reason it might be. There are some groups on the Left that embrace using firearms like the John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt, but if you watch their videos the train for shit in their use.
Click to expand...

I expect more Lefties will become quick learners. Let's not forget that many Vets under retirement age do not support Trump. Maybe they'll give free classes.

Agreed Kyle was a good shot, but being young, his judgment was off. His militia let him down by sticking an untried kid into a potentially violent situation. Why else was Kyle alone that night? Where was the rest of his militia? Running?

What in the video tells you Grosskreutz didn't know how to use a pistol?

I wouldn't bet my life on the Left knowing or not knowing how to use firearms. IMO, all Americans should receive firearms training in HS and States require their citizens to own a firearm.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
0b4478044be1d5a0fa9548d609001af738ac6ec5aae76305693ce61dc09bbf7f.jpg
Click to expand...

Agreed. He's an immature idiot. If there's a LW militia, Jacksonsprat should be their ammo carrier...with both hands. I would never trust him with a firearm since he's as likely to accidentally shoot himself as well as any innocents around him. Complete fucking moron.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
There is no exception there that allows for a 17 year old to carry a loaded firearm in a city.

The exceptions are here...
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Are you arguing that Rittenhouse was engaged in target practice or was a member of the national guard operating in the line of duty? We know for certain he wasn't under the supervision of an adult.
Click to expand...

See bolded.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I expect more Lefties will become quick learners. Let's not forget that many Vets under retirement age do not support Trump. Maybe they'll give free classes.
Click to expand...

Many vets might hate Trump. That doesn't translate into support for the Left. Few veterans I know would volunteer or willingly give instructions to the sort of scum and idiocy the Left is chock-a-bloc with. Aside from that, many of the sort that regularly go to these mob riots can't legally own or use a firearm...

Agreed Kyle was a good shot, but being young, his judgment was off. His militia let him down by sticking an untried kid into a potentially violent situation. Why else was Kyle alone that night? Where was the rest of his militia? Running?
Click to expand...

Prove he was in a "militia."

What in the video tells you Grosskreutz didn't know how to use a pistol?
Click to expand...

The fact that he didn't draw and immediately bring it to a ready position where he could aim it properly. Instead he had it down at waist (waste) level where he had little control over it. He also moved towards Rittenhouse rather than away. Guns are not knives. Distance is your friend.

I wouldn't bet my life on the Left knowing or not knowing how to use firearms. IMO, all Americans should receive firearms training in HS and States require their citizens to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either, but I would bet they are poorly trained in using one normally. As for the firearms thing you mention, that would give the non-Left a huge firepower advantage.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Many vets might hate Trump. That doesn't translate into support for the Left. Few veterans I know would volunteer or willingly give instructions to the sort of scum and idiocy the Left is chock-a-bloc with. Aside from that, many of the sort that regularly go to these mob riots can't legally own or use a firearm...

Prove he was in a "militia."

The fact that he didn't draw and immediately bring it to a ready position where he could aim it properly. Instead he had it down at waist (waste) level where he had little control over it. He also moved towards Rittenhouse rather than away. Guns are not knives. Distance is your friend.

I wouldn't either, but I would bet they are poorly trained in using one normally. As for the firearms thing you mention, that would give the non-Left a huge firepower advantage.
Click to expand...
Nice text wall. Who said anything about teaching scum except you?

It's on the video. Wait for the trial if you haven't seen the interviews already.

It's not unusual for a person to hesitate in killing someone. Unlike Kyle's militia which was probably papered with targets of BLM men and women, most people are not psychologically geared to killing a person. In short, he had his weapon but hesitated pointing and shooting Kyle. Do you agree he would have been justified in emptying his magazine into Kyle after Kyle began shooting and killing?

Times change.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Reason #1 to not vote Democrat: They cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

The whole idea has always been to reinstate the Clinton era assault rifle ban preventing the sale of such weapons. I also see with this idea that carrying these types of weapons in public will be punishable. Democrats use guns all the time too, hunting, protection in the cities, even antique collecting. The NRA has made gun advocates into paranoid children.
 
Crocodile said:
The whole idea has always been to reinstate the Clinton era assault rifle ban preventing the sale of such weapons. I also see with this idea that carrying these types of weapons in public will be punishable. Democrats use guns all the time too, hunting, protection in the cities, even antique collecting. The NRA has made gun advocates into paranoid children.
Click to expand...

QED. "Democrats: Rules so good they have to be mandatory"

436my6.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
QED. "Democrats: Rules so good they have to be mandatory"

436my6.jpg
Click to expand...

You want to live without governance you need to go off the grid someplace. There have always been rules for a responsible society. You can't buy a lot of things. It's always been funny how Sudafed is more regulated than guns. This assault ban was the law of the land and there was no tyranny swooping in like the NRA wants you to believe. The consequences were damn near unheard of school shootings and some cranky arms dealers not making money off them. The NRA is a shill for gun sales so of course, this wasn't OK. If your paranoid enough you need to carry an AR-15 you're paranoid enough to not take part in public society.
 
Crocodile said:
You want to live without governance you need to go off the grid someplace. There have always been rules for a responsible society. You can't buy a lot of things. It's always been funny how Sudafed is more regulated than guns. This assault ban was the law of the land and there was no tyranny swooping in like the NRA wants you to believe. The consequences were damn near unheard of school shootings and some cranky arms dealers not making money off them. The NRA is a shill for gun sales so of course, this wasn't OK. If your paranoid enough you need to carry an AR-15 you're paranoid enough to not take part in public society.
Click to expand...
Another lie which takes us back to this:

Reason #1 to not vote Democrat: They cannot be trusted to tell the truth.


Your statement is a lie because I've never advocated living without governance. In fact, I've stated quite the opposite several times. The fact you are lying now puts you in the same boat with all other liars regardless of party.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Interesting that the three people shot by Rittenhouse, the 17 year-old all had serious criminal records.

Joseph Rosenbaum, the first person Rittenhouse shot was seen by numerous people engaged in arson during the riot in question. Rosenbaum is a convicted sex offender.

Then there's Ian Miles Cheong. He's the guy that attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard. Cheong has numerous previous convictions for assault, threatening with a dangerous weapon, endangerment, domestic abuse (aka wife beater), etc.

EgaR7wcU4AAgGLX


Thug with a skateboard if you will.

His last was Giage "Lefty" Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz pulled a pistol and pointed it at Rittenhouse who then shot and wounded him. Grosskreutz has a prior felony conviction for a burglary so he was in the commission of a felony merely possessing a firearm.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...elons-who-were-shot-while-acting-like-felons/

This isn't a judgement about the validity of Rittenhouse's actions. It is just a note on who the people he shot were (I won't call them victims as two out of three clearly intended by their actions to seriously injure or kill Rittenhouse).
Click to expand...

NONE OF THAT MATTERS- THE POLICE HAVE TO FOLLOW STANDARD POLICE PROCEDURES WHEN THEY ARE ARRESTING OR APPREHENDING SUSPECTS.

WHEN THEY DON'T, AND SOMEONE GETS SHOT, THEY GET ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED.
 
gfm7175 said:
Self defense is not a crime, fuckwit... carrying a rifle is not a crime, fuckwit...
Click to expand...

It depends on who you are, where you are carrying it, and what type of rifle. For instance, if you carried a rifle in Tokyo, or Singapore, you would be going to prison for a very long time.

The fact is that none of the exceptions to carrying a rifle were met by Rittenhouse, so he is almost certainly guilty of being a minor carrying a rifle.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
NONE OF THAT MATTERS- THE POLICE HAVE TO FOLLOW STANDARD POLICE PROCEDURES WHEN THEY ARE ARRESTING OR APPREHENDING SUSPECTS.

WHEN THEY DON'T, AND SOMEONE GETS SHOT, THEY GET ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED.
Click to expand...

The potential of some thug being violent always matters.
 
Walt said:
It depends on who you are, where you are carrying it, and what type of rifle. For instance, if you carried a rifle in Tokyo, or Singapore, you would be going to prison for a very long time.

The fact is that none of the exceptions to carrying a rifle were met by Rittenhouse, so he is almost certainly guilty of being a minor carrying a rifle.
Click to expand...

How ironic that a gun hating pussy thinks he's knows anything about guns.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
It matters that policemen follow proper procedures. Why do you think he was prosecuted?
Click to expand...

I don't argue that. That doesn't have anything to do with considering a potential suspect's past actions.

With the circus that's going on now, all it takes is for a group of blacks to whine that black lives matter. You and I both know that if they truly cared about black lives, they'd be as concerned about all the shootings in places like Chicago not just when the shooter is a white cop.
 
Walt said:
It depends on who you are, where you are carrying it, and what type of rifle. For instance, if you carried a rifle in Tokyo, or Singapore, you would be going to prison for a very long time.
Click to expand...
This thread is about Wisconsin law, not Tokyo/Singapore law...

Walt said:
The fact is that none of the exceptions to carrying a rifle were met by Rittenhouse, so he is almost certainly guilty of being a minor carrying a rifle.
Click to expand...
It was not illegal for him to carry that rifle... not in Wisconsin, anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top