right wings new hero, kyle rittenhouse caught on camera beating up a girl

[ElNono]

Another strawman, since that's the left's version of what 2A supporters believe. (amazing that the 2nd Amendment to Bill of Rights can be characterized as having "supporters" and non supporters. What other Amendment has that distinction?)

As a 2A supporter (along with 1A and the rest of the BoR), I don't want everyone to have a gun. I think everyone who's legally and cons utionally clear to own a firearm should have that choice. I also don't think guns are always the solution. I think they are rarely the solution.

Is it a strawman? Here, let me refer you to the NRA itself: https://www.nraila.org/why-gun-control-doesn-t-work/

Noticeably: Crime Goes Down When Good Guys Have Guns

More:
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced during a press conference that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

More:
The NRA store even sells T-shirts with LaPierre’s slogan, and encourages buyers to “show everyone that you’re the ‘good guy’” by buying the T-shirt.

You might be the outlier here, but the NRA has been front and center on the advocacy side of the 2A, including legal challenges as well, and that's certainly not the left's version of the 2A. It's interesting as well, because the NRA wasn't always like this, but I suspect that's what brings money into their coffers nowadays.

So you're one of those 2A supporters you just mentioned above that thinks more armed people is better? Of course not, but then why did you separate yourself from your "general advocacy" statement above? General advocacy is what I stated. Only gun retailers think everyone should own a gun. The rest of us would prefer it was only us.

I only speak for myself. The rest comes from looking at the field. Whenever the argument of regulating the 2A further in almost any way, shape or form comes up, the push back from en ies like the NRA and similar is very clear and very public, even for basic things such as universal background checks.

When I talk about general advocacy, that's exactly the groups I'm referring to. I understand it doesn't apply uniformly to every 2A supporter or advocate, but it would be undeniable that a group like the NRA isn't front an center the voice of a lot of 2A advocates.

Left wing Poster A makes sloppy, broad brush comment, gets called out. (RG)
Left wing Poster A makes a sloppy retort in defense (RG didn't return lol)
Left wing Poster B shows up and makes a different defense, gets called out for the original claim (I think that's you this time, El. )
Left wing Poster B denies ever making the original claim, even though poster B is defending it (right on cue tbh)
Left wing Poster C shows up, defends original claim, defends poster B
Left wing Poster C gets called out, denies caring about the original claim, denies supporting Poster B, still wants a back and forth about the original claim. (or we could be here, I cannot recall)
Left wing Poster D shows up, posts a strawman meme about the attack on the original claim
The responses pretty much cease because of the web of that's developed,
Left wing Poster E calls fold

rinse and repeat

Sorry to drop that here, but you started by saying RG's broad brush wasn't a strawman, and that "everyone" wasn't infants and convicts. I wasn't even considering that level of pedantry. Now you're saying you want to ignore RG's comment and talk instead about the analogy of a strawman.

I understand your frustration, and nothing to be sorry about. I'm addressing things as they come, and I obviously engage because I think it's interesting and worth the discussion. Again, I'm not here to defend anybody, just to engage on things I think are interesting to discuss.

It was an analogy of using a strawman (see above).

I know you used it that way, I just didn't think the original was entirely a strawman (but that's what we're discussing, so this is moot).

[Blake]

Another strawman, since that's the left's version of what 2A supporters believe. (amazing that the 2nd Amendment to Bill of Rights can be characterized as having "supporters" and non supporters. What other Amendment has that distinction?)

As a 2A supporter (along with 1A and the rest of the BoR), I don't want everyone to have a gun. I think everyone who's legally and cons utionally clear to own a firearm should have that choice. I also don't think guns are always the solution. I think they are rarely the solution.

So you're one of those 2A supporters you just mentioned above that thinks more armed people is better? Of course not, but then why did you separate yourself from your "general advocacy" statement above? General advocacy is what I stated. Only gun retailers think everyone should own a gun. The rest of us would prefer it was only us.

Left wing Poster A makes sloppy, broad brush comment, gets called out. (RG)
Left wing Poster A makes a sloppy retort in defense (RG didn't return lol)
Left wing Poster B shows up and makes a different defense, gets called out for the original claim (I think that's you this time, El. )
Left wing Poster B denies ever making the original claim, even though poster B is defending it (right on cue tbh)
Left wing Poster C shows up, defends original claim, defends poster B
Left wing Poster C gets called out, denies caring about the original claim, denies supporting Poster B, still wants a back and forth about the original claim. (or we could be here, I cannot recall)
Left wing Poster D shows up, posts a strawman meme about the attack on the original claim
The responses pretty much cease because of the web of that's developed,
Left wing Poster E calls fold

rinse and repeat

Sorry to drop that here, but you started by saying RG's broad brush wasn't a strawman, and that "everyone" wasn't infants and convicts. I wasn't even considering that level of pedantry. Now you're saying you want to ignore RG's comment and talk instead about the analogy of a strawman.

It was an analogy of using a strawman (see above).

DMC's message board observations

[DMC]

Is it a strawman? Here, let me refer you to the NRA itself: https://www.nraila.org/why-gun-control-doesn-t-work/

Noticeably: Crime Goes Down When Good Guys Have Guns

More:
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced during a press conference that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

More:
The NRA store even sells T-shirts with LaPierre’s slogan, and encourages buyers to “show everyone that you’re the ‘good guy’” by buying the T-shirt.

You might be the outlier here, but the NRA has been front and center on the advocacy side of the 2A, including legal challenges as well, and that's certainly not the left's version of the 2A. It's interesting as well, because the NRA wasn't always like this, but I suspect that's what brings money into their coffers nowadays.

But the NRA isn't the general advocacy population just as the ACLU isn't that for the 1A nor Planned Parenthood for Roe V Wade. These are just organizations that rely on these principles to stay afloat, and they advertise themselves as advocacy groups and at times they are. I'd guess the overwhelmingly large percentage of gun owners in the US are not members of the NRA nor part of any "group". They do, however, support the 2A since they don't want to give up their own guns. That doesn't mean they want you to own one though.

If all you know of gun owners is what the news tells you, it's no wonder you think the NRA is the bulk of 2A proponents in the US.

Also, crime goes down when good guys have guns could be true, but it doesn't say "all good guys have guns". It's not advocating for more gun ownership (although it would serve them well to have higher membership). Also, being legal doesn't make you a good guy. Most active shooters were legal at one time.
It doesn't make sense for a self defense advocate to want everyone else armed. It only makes sense to support their freedom to be armed if they so choose. Do you think an MMA fighter wants everyone to be a skilled as they are? Of course not. They probably support training and even encourage it.

I only speak for myself. The rest comes from looking at the field. Whenever the argument of regulating the 2A further in almost any way, shape or form comes up, the push back from en ies like the NRA and similar is very clear and very public, even for basic things such as universal background checks.

That's because the 2A is under constant attack. So is the 1A but it's more subtle and basically that's often frowned upon by everyone unless the speech goes against that person's beliefs. You can be against the 2A because you don't own a gun and don't want one.

As a life long gun owner, veteran and 2A supporter, I couldn't give 2 s about the NRA and tbh I don't even know anyone who's a member. I see it like Ducks Unlimited, a club of people who want a card to say they belong to a club. You seem to have a very simplistic view of things, maybe that's how the news portrays it. They show a gun owner, call him a gun owner and he has to have a reflective orange hat, a pornstache, poor grammar and be uneducated. Then they switch to the NRA as if the NRA is basically the 2A. It's not.

When I talk about general advocacy, that's exactly the groups I'm referring to. I understand it doesn't apply uniformly to every 2A supporter or advocate, but it would be undeniable that a group like the NRA isn't front an center the voice of a lot of 2A advocates.

In the news.

72 million people report owning guns

NRA membership is around 5.5m

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Cons ution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday. (dated)

In all, 65 percent said they thought the Cons ution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

The 2A has a much larger support group than does the NRA and we didn't elect them as our representatives so why do you consider them to be?

I understand your frustration, and nothing to be sorry about. I'm addressing things as they come, and I obviously engage because I think it's interesting and worth the discussion. Again, I'm not here to defend anybody, just to engage on things I think are interesting to discuss.

The constant liberal arm locking here is normal. It doesn't bother me. I just patterned it, that's all.

I know you used it that way, I just didn't think the original was entirely a strawman (but that's what we're discussing, so this is moot).

The original was a strawman because, again, no one suggested everyone should own a gun. Kyle Rittenhouse having a gun doesn't equate to everyone having a gun, just as 700 buildings in and around the Floyd protests being burned to the ground didn't equate to cities burning down. It seemed clear to people then. Thus the liberal arm locking I referred to earlier. It used to be liberals had a difference of opinion. Now they just go along with the group.

[Nathan89]

FINALLY!

Prosecutor FINALLY making the correct argument;


DEADLY FORCE can ONLY be used when a reasonable person thinks he is in danger of IMMINENT DEATH OR BODILY HARM

not some unarmed midget chasing him

The child molester was short but likely had a significant strength advantage over his victim. Also he was making a move for the gun on his victim.

[SnakeBoy]

In the end he defended himself and quite effectively tbh

It was impressive to see how easily a little teenager can destroy an armed mob of libs

[SnakeBoy]

The child molester was short but likely had a significant strength advantage over his victim. Also he was making a move for the gun on his victim.

Yeah but Kyle could have stomped on the pedo's big toe and then made his escape.

[Nathan89]

He forgot about his attack on Kyle.

[Dirks_Finale]

It was impressive to see how easily a little teenager can destroy an armed mob of libs

It almost looked choreographed, like it was produced in Hollywood.

[Winehole23]

[DMC]

Seems there were a couple medics out there. Imagine calling yourself a medic, carrying a firearm and getting destroyed by a 17 year old in front of the entire world as you try to mob stomp him.

[Winehole23]

that's some great community protecting, sons

[hater]

[CosmicCowboy]

So how do you think the jury will decide?

Sounds like the defense had the better facts.

[Nathan89]

If there are intelligent and courageous people on the jury the result is obvious.

If Kyle isn't found not guilty it's a dark day for self defense. It would show the true power of the mob and smearing media.

[ChumpDumper]

If there are intelligent and courageous people on the jury the result is obvious.

If Kyle isn't found not guilty it's a dark day for self defense. It would show the true power of the mob and smearing media.

Relax. He's a doughy white guy and he cried. No way he's convicted.

[Spurs Homer]

So how do you think the jury will decide?

Sounds like the defense had the better facts.

facts show he probably wont get convicted for the highest charges- intentional homicide,

but facts show he should get convicted on the reckless type charges…


but

REALITY

means he will probably get away with most of his crimes

this is amerikkka

[CosmicCowboy]

facts show he probably wont get convicted for the highest charges- intentional homicide,

but facts show he should get convicted on the reckless type charges…


but

REALITY

means he will probably get away with most of his crimes

this is amerikkka

If they decide it was self defense it pretty much negates all the other charges.

[benefactor]

If there are intelligent and courageous people on the jury the result is obvious.

If Kyle isn't found not guilty it's a dark day for self defense. It would show the true power of the mob and smearing media.

Fear not, he will be found innocent and your fragility will remain intact until you find the next thing to cry about

[SnakeBoy]

So how do you think the jury will decide?

Sounds like the defense had the better facts.

I followed the trial on the unbiased Legal Insurrection site. No doubt the prosecution presented a terrible case but you never know what a jury will do.

[Will Hunting]

I followed the trial on the unbiased Legal Insurrection site. No doubt the prosecution presented a terrible case but you never know what a jury will do.

The evidence here is so bad for the prosecution that any conviction by the jury gets overturned on appeal imo

[SnakeBoy]

The evidence here is so bad for the prosecution that any conviction by the jury gets overturned on appeal imo

I agree the evidence is bad but I'm shocked at how bad the prosecutors were. I mean to actually tell the jury "Everybody takes a beating sometimes" is just ridiculous.

[Will Hunting]

I agree the evidence is bad but I'm shocked at how bad the prosecutors were. I mean to actually tell the jury "Everybody takes a beating sometimes" is just ridiculous.

Yeah that's part of what I mean by the evidence is so bad.

The prosecution's witness prep was parody level bad. One of their own witnesses more or less said Rittenhouse was acting in self defense; another admitted to waiving a gun at Rittenhouse

[Isitjustme?]

The evidence here is so bad for the prosecution that any conviction by the jury gets overturned on appeal imo

If I've watched my law & orders correctly as soon as the verdict is announced the defense could ask the judge to set aside the verdict to do like a motion to set aside the verdict and you know this judge guy would do it. After he was done ming in his pants at the thought of being given that option/asked of course

[SnakeBoy]

[DMC]

Did the girl Kyle beat up testify against him?