The 2nd Amendment Thread

These looters, rioters and most protesters these days are just emotionally weak losers. You're going to loot and protest because of Jacob Blake? Think about what your cause is? A criminal who had warrants for sexual assault and a few other things. Wasn't he going to stab someone before the cops gave him lead?? Sound like he deserved it.

I turned on the tv the other night and people in NY were protesting. Steve Kerr and Steve Nash looked like they were going to cry. Wtf is wrong w/ people these days? People protested for voting rights, basic equal human rights and now they protest for criminals like Jacob Blake.

https://c.tenor.com/nZT5X9swNZ4AAAAd/jack-nicholson-yes.gif

I think the scary part of all of this was the mishandling the media did of the story, I had a hard time gathering the facts every outlet had a different story.

The media is a very very powerful weapon much more so then a random kid with a ar 15. Kyle might have mowed down two people the media can light a war with their words.


Really? I don’t really give a fuck if the media said there were people from Mars, and Bigfoot there.
And if i had to choose between a reporter and a “random kid with an AR-15” walking down my block Ill take the reporter every day and twice on Sunday.

A fuckin child went out of his way with an assault rifle to go to a place of social unrest because in his little brain he thought he was a policeman or a soldier. Nope. He was a scared little kid who started firing at the first whisper of trouble and cried all the way through his trial. Fuck you cry baby, next time dont strap on your big boy pants cus they dont fit.

Prosecutors didn’t kill those people. Reporters didn’t kill those people. A racist little kid with an assault rifle having zero business being where he was killed those people.

What is really irking me is how everyone is acting like what was going on there was unfounded, unnecessary, and criminal. There was a bad element there, not nearly as bad as Jan 6 , but a bad element looking to take advantage. That is for police to handle. Not vigilantes.

But i implore you all to search deep down and ask yourselves what the cause of those protests were. Not just one person who was shot by police. But tens of thousands of blacks who have been putting up with too much for too long. And if you dont think that they have well than you are mistaken. The government wont do anything about it. Oh maybe they should just call the police on the police? That’ll work. [emoji849]
It is hundreds of years, and the kkk, and the civil rights movement, and the police brutality boiling over and all they can do is make noise until people fucking look at them and acknowledge the problem. So in doing so some people took advantage and looted. Id say in comparison to what they have been going thru that it is an extremely small price to pay. And for racist cunt little kyle rittenhouse and the rest of the “protectors” that went marching in there to quiet them down …well eat shit.

Bunch of white cunt “protectors” looking to keep the status quo because it works for them? Fuck you. Of course there were white protesters there. Some of us actually understand the plight of the black man in Murica. White people with guns making sure the black and brown people and their sympathizers dont get unruly? Man. No way. They were there to make sure everyone knew who was still boss. Im fucking embarrassed for anyone who doesn’t see that. Im embarrassed for the justice system in this country. Im embarrassed to be American period right now. Its about time we start persecuting the fuckin mother fuckers with hate in their hearts.
The letter of the law was followed? My white ass. Whose law? Gtfoh.

The absolute worst is how this is framed as criminals that needed to be “policed” by the right, and Jan 6 was an actual protest and what happened there is no big deal. Its fuckin bat shit crazy. Civil rights is not worth the protests and its good people died at the hands of the right, false election fraud though - oh shit - let them go they are Patriots. LOLOLOLOL ITS FUCKIN BAT SHIT CRAZY IN MURICA!

Prosecution was weak. Plus Daddy Judge was going to do everything in his power to make sure Jr didn’t start crying again after the verdict. I mean there was “a black” on the jury. [emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]

LOL, yup . The murderd victims could not be called victims.

Prosecution was weak. Plus Daddy Judge was going to do everything in his power to make sure Jr didn’t start crying again after the verdict. I mean there was “a black” on the jury. [emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]

And yet you think the Jury should have found him guilty. I just don't get that line of reasoning.

Regardless of political affiliation, which appears Rittenhouse top defense lawyer is a liberal…most agree the coverage of the trial was mainstream media-lead disinformation campaign:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/rittenhouse-defense-lawyer-rips-msnbc-cnn-for-missing-basic-facts-it-makes-me-angry

Rittenhouse Defense Lawyer Rips MSNBC, CNN For Missing ‘Basic Facts’: ‘It Makes Me Angry’

The defense attorney ripped into the media, specifically pointing to the networks MSNBC and CNN for their biased portrayal of the case and omission of facts.

“I can say this: much of the coverage at the beginning was wrong. The trial proved that,” Richards said. “Just in the last two weeks, you know, you people may not believe this, but I watch MSNBC, CNN. I’m not a big Fox guy. And when I hear Joe Scarborough saying my client shot his gun 60 times, that’s wrong. When I hear some guest host on Joy Reid say my client drove four hours to go to a riot with his AR, that’s wrong. It’s false.”

“It makes me angry that they can’t take the time to at least get the generic, basic facts correct because it didn’t fit in the story they wanted to tell,” he said.

The host next queried whether Richards was ever concerned that Rittenhouse would become a “stooge” for the far right.

“Were you worried that your client was becoming an agent of animus?” Cuomo asked. “I mean, Fox News is one thing. I used to work there. Tucker Carlson is a different animal. You know what he means in the political dialogue. Were you worried that Rittenhouse was going to become a stooge of that fringe of our political spectrum?”

Richards said that he spoke with his client about it. “I had a talk with Kyle,” the attorney said. “All I can say is what I say. And Kyle’s going to have some hard choices in his life about the direction he goes and what he stands for. Those will have to be made by Kyle eventually.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rittenhouse-lawyer-mark-richards-fox-news-tucker-carlson-1260675/

I liked what his attorney said re Kyle needs to learn how to say "no" to people and he will have to decide how he wants to live his life going forward.

And yet you think the Jury should have found him guilty. I just don't get that line of reasoning.



yes,he should have been found guilty, of something.

https://www.insider.com/6-myths-surrounding-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-debunked-2021-11

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

yes,he should have been found guilty, of something.

https://www.insider.com/6-myths-surrounding-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-debunked-2021-11

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked


Was the jury supposed to add a more appropriate charge?

Was the jury supposed to add a more appropriate charge?

It had been said they could. The gun was bought on a straw purchase...that makes it illegal and Rittenhouse was part of that. Really , you are defending a 17 year old who thinks he needs an assault rifle and is getting paid to be security for a Car dealer , you're not that stupid.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-wisconsin/


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

G1
Esquire at Bullshit & Associates