Kyle Rittenhouse is an American Political Hero far wise and mature beyond his years.

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Nope. He doesn't have a criminal record, moron.

Oh, but the day is young, you goofy little simp.

If you think Rittenhouse is walking away from this scott-free, you're high...

He's guilty of violating the curfew, a misdemeanor. That's the same severity as getting a speeding ticket.

Really?

I'll have to find it again, but I'm pretty sure he could go to jail for 9 months on that misdemeanor...

You can also go to jail for speeding, moron.

 

[Canon Shooter]

He was in possession for the evening because black loaned it to him. That happens every day when people go hunting.

He wasn't hunting, and the law is quite clear...

No, it is not illegal for someone under 18 to possess a rifle, although the law on this point is poorly written.

Yes, it is illegal.

I suspect the reason you believe the law is poorly written is because you lack the requisite aptitude to understand it...

Who cares what you think? All that matters is what you can prove in court, and in that light he hasn't committed any felonies.

That remains to be seen. I'd bet there's a fair chance that he's convicted for killing those two rioters...

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

If you believe that it was perfectly okay for him to conspire to illegally get a hold of a rifle, break curfew, and end up killing people, then you and I have nothing to discuss. I can sit back and wait for the outcome of the case...

I think it's perfectly OK to kill douchebags who are trying to kill you. "getting a hold of a rifle" is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

Nope.

Have you read the law?

If you have, and you say it was legal for him to be in possession of that rifle, then you're a fuckin' idiot...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

Nope.

Have you read the law?

If you have, and you say it was legal for him to be in possession of that rifle, then you're a fuckin' idiot...

heres the law on that,,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

Nope.

Have you read the law?

If you have, and you say it was legal for him to be in possession of that rifle, then you're a fuckin' idiot...

heres the law on that,,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Okay.

So, you're saying that state laws are of no consequence?

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

Nope.

Have you read the law?

If you have, and you say it was legal for him to be in possession of that rifle, then you're a fuckin' idiot...

heres the law on that,,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Okay.

So, you're saying that state laws are of no consequence?

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land,,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

Essentially, yes.

You can join the Marines at age 17 if you have parent's consent (that's the same with the Guard, unless you're emancipated).

Why don't you look up the law regarding possession of a firearm by a minor...

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

Essentially, yes.

You can join the Marines at age 17 if you have parent's consent (that's the same with the Guard, unless you're emancipated).

Why don't you look up the law regarding possession of a firearm by a minor...

I posted the law on guns/arms in this country,,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

Essentially, yes.

You can join the Marines at age 17 if you have parent's consent (that's the same with the Guard, unless you're emancipated).

Why don't you look up the law regarding possession of a firearm by a minor...

I posted the law on guns/arms in this country,,,

Child gun laws in Wisconsin, and how adults could face jail time

Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces.

(I'm pretty sure if the gun is then used in a homicide it's a felony; still working that one)

Giving, loaning or selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine unless the firearm is used for target practice or hunting. If that gun is used in a homicide or suicide, the person can be charged with a felony carrying up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Like it or not, the law in Wisconsin is quite clear. Rittenhouse and Black both broke the law.

And individual states have every right to enact their own laws...

 

[progressive hunter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

Essentially, yes.

You can join the Marines at age 17 if you have parent's consent (that's the same with the Guard, unless you're emancipated).

Why don't you look up the law regarding possession of a firearm by a minor...

I posted the law on guns/arms in this country,,,

Child gun laws in Wisconsin, and how adults could face jail time

Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces.

(I'm pretty sure if the gun is then used in a homicide it's a felony; still working that one)

Giving, loaning or selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine unless the firearm is used for target practice or hunting. If that gun is used in a homicide or suicide, the person can be charged with a felony carrying up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Like it or not, the law in Wisconsin is quite clear. Rittenhouse and Black both broke the law.

And individual states have every right to enact their own laws...

we will check you off as anti 2nd A and anti- constitution,,,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you aren't leaving us much choice except civil war.

How soon are you gonna choose “civil war” to put an end to all that black lives mattering’ bullshit occupying your head. Gonna wait until LT Rittenhouse gets acquiited? You will need experienced killers on you side:

Young Kyle will be well worth the wait.

Kyle Rittenhouse flashes white-power sign at bar while out on bond

Photos show teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly flashing white-power symbols while downing beers with members of the Proud Boys — images prosecutors are using to stiffen his bond condition…

www.google.com

“The 18-year-old was celebrated by members of the right-wing group at a Wisconsin bar just 90 minutes after he was arraigned on Jan. 5 for the deadly Kenosha riots, Kenosha County prosecutors said in court documents.

Wearing a T-shirt reading “Free as F–k,” Rittenhouse was serenaded with the Proud Boys anthem, “Proud of Your Boy” — and then repeatedly made the “OK” sign, which has been “co-opted as a symbol of white supremacy/ white power” and used by neo-Nazis and the KKK, prosecutors alleged.

Let us know when the White Power boy you are so PROUD of Is ready to lead you in battle.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

YOu arrest people for defending themselves from violent mobs, you aren't leaving us much choice except civil war.

is it your demand that our centuries aged criminal law system of investigating crime followed by indictment, arrest and trial be replaced by a system where white guys with guns never fire their weapons unless in self defense so there is never a need to go through all the investigation to trial stuff.

And specifically when the white guy is defending white people’s property from the black scourge that is trying to take over the entire country by riot upon endless riot.

You want civil war because Lt Rottenhouse has been ‘Arrested?

sick man sick. So

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You want society to ignore the mob violence and focus instead on the terrible "taint" of a gun that was not approved by the State.

You want society to ignore the mob violence and focus instead on the terrible "taint" of a gun that was not approved by the State.


That is the question for society. To side with the young man defending him self with a "tainted gun" or the violent mob that attacked

Your suggesting that what the good people of this nation should do in the face of violent mobs, is to let them rule the streets burning, looting and killing, so as to not provoke them,

You are siding with the violent mob,

Is there a cure for Blackmobaphobia?

 

[Canon Shooter]

are you saying state laws over rule the constitution???

cause the last I heard the constitution is the supreme law of the land

If that's true, why does Rittenhouse have a $2 million bail?

nice dodge,,

if what youre saying is true and states can over rule the constitution I am sure youre OK with eliminating due process and jailing or executing people without a trial,,

you either support it or you dont,,, there is no middle ground,,

I didn't dodge anything. Your position is one which dictates that Rittenhouse should be released and all charges dropped, but that hasn't happened, nor does it look likely. I'm simply asking why that is.

And then, if you would be so kind, please explain how it is that different states have different laws pertaining to firearms. Some mirror federal law, but many do not. Surely, if all of these laws were unconstitutional, they'd have been successfully challenged by now.

If your position is one which dictates that individual states cannot enact laws, then you're truly lost...

you either support the constitution or you dont,, I support it and it seems like you dont,,,

on a side note I looked up the age requirement for the wis. national guard and low and behold you can join at 17

"Be between the ages of 17 and 35. Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Be at least a junior in high school, or have a high school diploma or a GED certificate."

so I guess its OK to be armed if youre working for the government but not as a private citizen,,,

Essentially, yes.

You can join the Marines at age 17 if you have parent's consent (that's the same with the Guard, unless you're emancipated).

Why don't you look up the law regarding possession of a firearm by a minor...

I posted the law on guns/arms in this country,,,

Child gun laws in Wisconsin, and how adults could face jail time

Possession of a gun by anyone under 18 is a misdemeanor, unless that gun is being used for target practice, hunting or the child is a member of the armed forces.

(I'm pretty sure if the gun is then used in a homicide it's a felony; still working that one)

Giving, loaning or selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine unless the firearm is used for target practice or hunting. If that gun is used in a homicide or suicide, the person can be charged with a felony carrying up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Like it or not, the law in Wisconsin is quite clear. Rittenhouse and Black both broke the law.

And individual states have every right to enact their own laws...

we will check you off as anti 2nd A and anti- constitution,,,

And that's all you'd have to do to prove that you're a fucking ignorant dipshit.

I'm a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, dickbag. And the Constitution? I spent 20 years defending it. Unless you can say the same, eat my shit, you ignorant cocksucker...

 

[Canon Shooter]

you aren't leaving us much choice except civil war.

How soon are you gonna choose “civil war” to put an end to all that black lives mattering’ bullshit occupying your head. Gonna wait until LT Rittenhouse gets acquiited? You will need experienced killers on you side:

Young Kyle will be well worth the wait.

Kyle Rittenhouse flashes white-power sign at bar while out on bond

Photos show teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly flashing white-power symbols while downing beers with members of the Proud Boys — images prosecutors are using to stiffen his bond condition…

www.google.com

“The 18-year-old was celebrated by members of the right-wing group at a Wisconsin bar just 90 minutes after he was arraigned on Jan. 5 for the deadly Kenosha riots, Kenosha County prosecutors said in court documents.

Wearing a T-shirt reading “Free as F–k,” Rittenhouse was serenaded with the Proud Boys anthem, “Proud of Your Boy” — and then repeatedly made the “OK” sign, which has been “co-opted as a symbol of white supremacy/ white power” and used by neo-Nazis and the KKK, prosecutors alleged.

Let us know when the White Power boy you are so PROUD of Is ready to lead you in battle.

His mother sure sounds like a real piece of work...