Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And if you see these guys as threatening, you are clearly just racist.

/s

Those are known people with a known context that adds to the interpretation of what they are doing. They've asserted they have a Constitutional right and were doing so to demonstrate that right. Now, that is not to say that in a different context those same people having done other things could not bring into being a different more threatening context.

A completely different person brought a different context along with his gun because he had said prior he wanted to get his gun to shoot some people whom he observed committing minor crimes, those for which killing a person is illegal. Then, following this he was stalking around other people with the gun he had wanted to shoot people whom he judged were committing crimes. He obtained the gun with shady dealings and stalked after people with whom he politically disagreed, waiting for crimes to be committed or to be attacked so that he could do his stated goal. OR at a minimum his body language, words, stalking after people who he opposed, not participating in the activities of the people he stalked, all provided a context that he was threatening.

 

[scombrid]

Meanwhile Charlie Kirk is worth a lot more to Erica and The Heritage Foundation dead than he was when alive. She’s practically got her own Eras tour going.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And if you see these guys as threatening, you are clearly just racist.

/s

This photo is over Fifty-eight years old. (Yes, Fifty-eight with two F's and a Y. And anyway, with hands in pockets and in full view of cops I think Derec's fear is mostly imagined.)

The right-wing needs to stoke Fear of the Black Man to pursue its agenda, but ... with a 58-year-old photo?? Surely Derec isn't trying to make a caricature of racist right-wing propaganda? Right? Is there some other punch-line I'm missing?

I mean yeah if I see a group of people with guns I'm gonna find that even more threatening than one person with a gun. Not sure what the point is? Besides Derec pretending this has to do with "woke skin color" of course. Does Derec believe people who have been through mass shootings for example, and want tighter gun regulation (a very "woke" idea) only want gun regulation for white people?

 

[Jarhyn]

Meanwhile Charlie Kirk is worth a lot more to Erica and The Heritage Foundation dead than he was when alive. She’s practically got her own Eras tour going.

Her Freudian "grift" slip was pure gold.

 

[laughing dog]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And if you see these guys as threatening, you are clearly just racist.

/s

No. But if you feel the need to trot out such photographs to flail at a “gotcha”, you just might be a flaming racist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil.

I suspect you are right, especially after all the facts that came out after the initial incident. There's all the data that came out before, during, and even after the trial. The only reason to continue to think Rittenhouse is the villain is political.

Similar political opinions are why I posted It's not the guns, because of those awful people defending themselves against innocent criminals.

 

[Derec]

Was Ritt afraid of being raped? How did he knew the guy was a pedophile? If he didn't know, what relevance does it have?

No. He just knew he was being attacked. The child rapist stuff just further elucidates who he was.

Or does QAnon pay you on a per-keystroke basis?

You just can't resist with the ad hominems?

You've been ranting about the heroic Ritt, along with George the Hero in Florida, for years now and still completely miss the point.

I did not rant (I merely responded to Archtich's rants) and neither did I ever call Ritt "heroic". And i have not mentioned Z in years as far as I recall.

We can't expect you to adopt the rational position, but you should at least try to understand it.

Wrong. My position is the rational one.

Pay attention:
If Ritt was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to self-defense. Has anyone ever disputed that?

Yes indeed, that was disputed.

Your Hero George Z from Florida who stalked a black child because the child was wearing a hoodie had the right of self-defense once he felt endangered. Has anyone ever disputed that? No? Then Why the F**k do you insist on prattling this out over and over and over?

Why are you going on about Z again? And I never called him a "hero" either. You are tilting at straw windmills you erected yourself.

Even if a transgender black Islamo-Marxist in the country illegally from Venezuela with anti-Trump tattoos prominently displayed was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, even he would have the right to self-defense.

True. I am not disputing that. Some of your Ilk are disputing that somebody like Ritt has the right to self-defense when attacked just because his attackers were participating in a #BLM riot.

(You'd deny the right to him of course, but I'm trying to explain the position of rational thinkers.)

I would not. And the non-rational thinkers are on the other side of this discussion, just fyi.

The problem with George is that he put himself in a position where he was likely to kill a human being.

Are you still on about George? No, following somebody that you think is casing houses is not putting oneself "in a position where he was likely to kill a human being". "Likely" being defined as P>0.5.

That's a No-No position to be in, even when 12 jurors rightly say Not guilty. Ritt put himself in a position where he could go home proudly, having killed two "Antifa" in self-defense.

I mean he did engage in self defense. The three were clearly attacking him.

(And where the F**k do you get the "Antifa" label?

Are you really denying that Antifa were a big part of 2020 rioting?

Or is it just a label you throw around for the anti-MAGA crowd generally?

There is a big space between MAGA on one side and far left Antifa types on the other. One can be against both extremes.

And if the transgender black Islamo-Marxist in the country illegally from Venezuela with anti-Trump tattoos prominently displayed went to a Trump rally carrying a machine gun, rational thinkers would blame him for his action, even if the bullets he started spewing were in self-defense.

First of all, there is a big difference between semi-auto rifles and machine guns.
Second, there have been plenty of heavily armed black or left-wing militias and they do not get criticized by the Ilk here.

Capische?

Do you?

I can only take so much. Get RayJ to fix the bug (or is it a feature? ) in the Ignore implementation, and I'll happily put you back on that list.

Poor baby!

 

[Derec]

This photo is over Fifty-eight years old. (Yes, Fifty-eight with two F's and a Y.

I know how old it is, but thanks anyway.
I could have used plenty of more recent photos of course, many of them from 2020, but I chose this one to show that left-wing and non-white people bringing weapons to a protest has a long history.
This was in reference to the likes of GenesisNemesis claiming that Ritt simply bringing a weapon to a protest was somehow in itself illegitimate and threatening.

And anyway, with hands in pockets and in full view of cops I think Derec's fear is mostly imagined.)

Who said anything about fear? I was just pointing out GN's hypocrisy over weapons at political protests.
As you said, this was a staged protest, and there was no real danger there. Not that BPP did not use their weapons for more nefarious purposes, like ambushing cops and murdering people (including Kathleen Smith and Alex Rackley).

Is there some other punch-line I'm missing?

You are missing the entire context of the discussion. Not totally surprising, given that you keep putting people on your ignore list.

 

[Derec]

Those are known people with a known context that adds to the interpretation of what they are doing. They've asserted they have a Constitutional right and were doing so to demonstrate that right.

Does not change the fact that they brought weapons to a political protest. Same thing people on here is saying is illegitimate when people on the right side of the spectrum do it. I was pointing the inconsistency, the hypocrisy of it.

Now, that is not to say that in a different context those same people having done other things could not bring into being a different more threatening context.

For example when BPP was ambushing cops, murdering people or robbing banks? Yes, these are different actions than protesting. If you do not think BPP (or more recently for example the "Not Fucking Around Coalition") is wrong for bringing guns to a protest, then neither should you think Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong for doing the same. If it would be wrong to attack a BPP or NFAC member at a protest, then neither was it right to attack Kyle Rittenhouse.

A completely different person

Who?

 

[Derec]

I mean yeah if I see a group of people with guns I'm gonna find that even more threatening than one person with a gun.

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed? What do you think of Garrett Foster bringing his AK47 to a protest? Was his killer justified in finding him threatening just because he was armed?

Not sure what the point is? Besides Derec pretending this has to do with "woke skin color" of course. Does Derec believe people who have been through mass shootings for example, and want tighter gun regulation (a very "woke" idea) only want gun regulation for white people?

Some of them definitely do.
David Hogg Apologizes For Condemning Violence By Non-White People: ‘It’s Not My Place’

Hogg, a co-founder of the gun control advocacy group March For Our Lives, called for a “nonviolent political revolution” and said that movements pushed through “violence and hate” are counterproductive. His comments came after a summer of Black Lives Matter protests that spawned hundreds of riots across major American cities.

So far, so good. Had he just left it at that.

Hogg later clarified that his comments are only directed at “young white people” who have used the protests and riots as “cover” to loot, vandalize, and destroy stores and attack others. He said that “BIPOC” — an acronym standing for black, indigenous, and people of color — are exempt from his statement condemning violence. He apparently made the correction after a number of his followers criticized him for not separating violent acts committed by white and non-white people.
“This is directed specifically at the young white people I see arming themselves or wanting to so they can go and loot and act in antagonistic ways against the state trying to use allyship as a cover,” Hogg said. “Let me be clear what I am NOT trying to do is tell BIPOC people how they should react to violence directed at them by the state. It’s not my place or any white persons to direct or criticize the way BIPOC people choose to defend themselves against this violence from the state.”
“I am sorry for how understandably anyone could have misinterpreted what was said,” he continued. “I appreciate those that have called me out and let me know how this tweet was offensive and I am welcome to continuing to learn. Many are understandably upset and offended and I have have (sic) to do my part in admitting to mistakes when I make them and supporting my friends.”

Political violence by so-called "BIPoC" is seen as "good" or at least not condemnable by many within movement leftism.

 

[Derec]

No. But if you feel the need to trot out such photographs to flail at a “gotcha”, you just might be a flaming racist.

There is nothing "racist", much less flaming, about pointing out the flaming hypocrisy (to borrow your adjective) of people who support black militias marching while heavily armed while condemning the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[bilby]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

 

[Patooka]

I'm late to the party to this derail, but anyone who tries to defend a 17 year old armed with a military spec rifle being unsupervised at a protest is as dumb as dogshit.

And Rittenhouse is a lying cunt. He wasn't there to "protect his community" or some other bullshit like that. He wanted to be the hero of his own story like literally every other 17 year old boy. And I do mean all of them. That he got his wish and is canonised by MAGA cunts is pretty repulsive.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

They do love their whataboutisms. It's all they've got. If they had logic they wouldn't be right wingers (they also completely ignore when you point out that you'd be threatened by anyone carrying guns and continue making whataboutisms anyway).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those are known people with a known context that adds to the interpretation of what they are doing. They've asserted they have a Constitutional right and were doing so to demonstrate that right.

Does not change the fact that they brought weapons to a political protest. Same thing people on here is saying is illegitimate when people on the right side of the spectrum do it. I was pointing the inconsistency, the hypocrisy of it.

They brought guns to a protest about gun rights. That isn't bringing guns to a random protest nor while stalking after people whom you fervently political disagree. Those are three different things.

Now, that is not to say that in a different context those same people having done other things could not bring into being a different more threatening context.

For example when BPP was ambushing cops, murdering people or robbing banks? Yes, these are different actions than protesting. If you do not think BPP (or more recently for example the "Not Fucking Around Coalition") is wrong for bringing guns to a protest, then neither should you think Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong for doing the same. If it would be wrong to attack a BPP or NFAC member at a protest, then neither was it right to attack Kyle Rittenhouse.

A completely different person

Who?

Wow, we're discussing the person you just named and somehow you didn't know we were discussing him.

 

[Politesse]

Yeah, well, what if it was LIMP GAVIN NEWSOM and SADDAM OBAMA HUSSEIN standing in the street with guns? Where would you precious principals be then?!?!

 

[laughing dog]

No. But if you feel the need to trot out such photographs to flail at a “gotcha”, you just might be a flaming racist.

There is nothing "racist", much less flaming, about pointing out the flaming hypocrisy (to borrow your adjective) of people who support black militias marching while heavily armed while condemning the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse.

I’m sure you feel that way. But, your feelings are irrational by definition, and, in this case, driven by illogical reasoning.
Rittenhouse went into a riot, looking for trouble. Those black militants were not in a combat zone of any type. They were posing. I agree they looked threatening - that was the point. Interestingly, no one thought to shoot them.

So, I’ll stand by my observation’s validity.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

 

[Toni]

I don't know why you are doubling down on Rittenhouse's criminal activities but fine, we'll go with that.

What "criminal activities" has he been convicted of, exactly?

Kyle Rittenhouse conspired with Dominick Black to illegally purchased an AR-15 which he then illegally carried after curfew on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin

So, now you are calling it a criminal conspiracy? It's more like you are doubling down on exaggerating anything Ritt did, while downplaying everything those who attacked him that night did.

during a multi-day protest that became rioting at night in an apparent attempt to bolster a militia that was trying to exert an authority they did not lawfully possess.

Afaik, he and Black were invited by a business owner to protect it. They were not part of any "militia".

If he was a black male teenager you'd call that proof he was a thug, that he knowingly and deliberately provoked the white guy who bravely chased after him and unjustifiably shot the white guys who tried to disarm him.

Nonsense. Had he been black, and everything else the same, my stance would be the same. Would yours?

I'm not certain you'd be calling for the death penalty but I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

More nonsense.

Rosenbaum pled guilty to two counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

Wording of the law does not change the fact that he molested children.

Are you interested in getting the facts straight or do you just want to stand on your soapbox and rant?

It is a fact that 9-11 year old boys are prepubescent children.

Okay, soapbox it is.
Have fun with your strawmen spouting Ad Hominems.

It is not an ad hominem or strawman to point out the hypocrisy of insisting that 17 year old girls are "children" who absolutely cannot consent to sex with an adult, while at the same time calling molesting 9-11 year old boys "sexual conduct with a minor" and refusing to acknowledge that these were children, not merely minors.

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people. Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

Guns are often a liability to self-defense.

A gun implies a sense of strength, but only works if the bluff is not called, in which case, the trigger needs to be pulled. Pulling the trigger of a gun and killing someone is a big freaking deal (something Rittenhouse has shown zero remorse for doing). As a defensive weapon, it requires the shooter to be still and not able to flee and also limits close quarter scuffling as dropping the gun is a very bad idea leaving a person incapable of using their dominant hand for self-defense, which really limits the value of the weapon as a defensive instrument.

Women often carry mace or learn defensive maneuvers intended to incapacitate an attacker, not kill the attacker. Men don't carry mace, because... well...