nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Beasty

No spitting, biting, gouging or uncivility allowed

First thread here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

salmocab

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I know I'd rather have an armed 17 year old defending my business rather than just letting it burn down.

I’d rather not risk a child’s life over a business but there you go people priorities are different

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I know I'd rather have an armed 17 year old defending my business rather than just letting it burn down.

Really? An child who seemingly picked up a gun that day and gunned down 3 people, killing 2. Bit of a risk to take as a business owner.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

LOL I said straight off the bat that I had no evidence. Keep your panties on. I have heard it before because clients in the US have spoken of it. Again just to be clear, it may or may not be true & I cannot prove I have heard it before.

But you decide to repeat the lies anyway because........?

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

The gun didn't cross state lines
open carry is legal there
he could use a loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds carry for hunting
possession is a misdemeanour without the ID card.

on the balance of it , Kyle having and carrying the gun is less illegal than if he was carrying a bag of weed.

But we've been told this wasn't his gun - apparently a friend gave it to him. The age for carrying a rifle openly in Wisconsin is 18. He's 17. So he was carrrying a gun not belonging to him underage.

LessOutragePlz

Penn wrote: »

It was illegal for him to carry the rifle outside. He was breaking the law. He chose to go out and defend that business (which he did not have to do) but chose to break the law in order to do so. He broke the law.

Do you agree?

Yes it was illegal under state law for him to carry the rifle but his lawyer is going to argue that he was allowed carry it under the 2nd amendment.

He says as much in 2:51 in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2RJ-iv2VyQ

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope he was convicted of a crime so he was 100% guilty.

"Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

But he was innocent when he was in jail and died right? Previous convictions aside, or do previous convictions carry over and matter because if they do......

namloc1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But you decide to repeat the lies anyway because........?

He dare not displease the Dear Leader.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Really? An child who seemingly picked up a gun that day and gunned down 3 people, killing 2. Bit of a risk to take as a business owner.

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

But we've been told this wasn't his gun - apparently a friend gave it to him. The age for carrying a rifle openly in Wisconsin is 18. He's 17. So he was carrrying a gun not belonging to him underage.

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

Hang on a second, we were told above repeatedly this wasn't his gun and he picked it up that day. I never once mentioned he had no experience with a gun. You just made that up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

8 hours a day on call of duty for 6 years.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hang on a second, we were told above repeatedly this wasn't his gun and he picked it up that day. I never once mentioned he had no experience with a gun. You just made that up.

you were phrasing that to imply that just handing a 17 year old a gun is a bad idea. Im explaining that this is handing a firearm to somebody experienced with firearms, id rather have had a gun handed to an enthusiast like Kyle with experience and training than a random person over the age of 21 with none of that.

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I was responding to another poster that claimed he went to Kenosha with the sole intention of causing trouble.

I pointed out that the reason he was in Kenosha that day was to work as a community lifeguard so he was indeed working in Kenosha that day as a lifeguard.

Do try keep up.

Right, so do you admit that at the time he wasn't working? He might have gone to Kenosha to do work, but he lef that job to carry out his militia task

You mentioned that he was working, not me. That you have been shown to be wrong is not my fault.

Since he was not working, then he went there as a private individual. A vigilante or militia you could class him as.

He might well have gone there with the best intentions, although bringing a loaded gun is hardly looking to de-escalate the situation.

I really cannot understand why you are going to bat for this guy. He went there to make a stand, and if that meant shooting people then so be it. It ended up exactly as one could have told him it would.

The only reason you are looking to defend him is because he is a Trump supporter. If he had a Biden hat on you would have no qualms in calling him out.

gmisk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

...that's a lot of ifs isn't it....was he hunting?

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

Yikes! Best not use that defense. "Yes your Honor he was carrying the gun for hunting".

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

8 hours a day on call of duty for 6 years.

greylake police department cadet training, which includes range based rifle and pistol training. Its more firearms training than most of the antifa nuts have popping round with pistols.

Eric Cartman

gmisk wrote: »

...that's a lot of ifs isn't it....was he hunting?

thats one if, the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me' and its over.

Carfacemandog

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is all very odd when compared to th shooting of Blake. The excuse is that there might have been a knife in the car and as such the officer was right to shoot him, in the back, 7 times.

Compare this to a white dude walking along with a gun and the cops did nothing at all.

Not unlike when they were arresting people that had laser pointers that they were pointing at them because they 'might' be used as dangerous weapons.

Or when police were aggressively arresting people providing food and while possibly or possibly not having merit over the people possessing fireworks (those arrested dispute this) and filling gas canisters (apparently for portable coolers), claimed that their facemasks were "shields". Mysteriously, these people were left free to go only a few days later.

Yet time and again during these protests and riots we have seen police chatting away with heavily armed far right groups, warning them in advance of any actions they might be taking so they won't get caught up in it, and in cases like Rittenhouse thanking them for their being there while giving water. Which shouldn't be that shocking, given that the FBI have been warning for years of far right infiltration of police departments, and as police have often been found having extremely inappropriate communications with leaders of these groups for some time.

The actions of police over the course of these protests have proven beyond any doubt that while there are many really good cosp out there, as an overall force they are absolutely not fit for purpose and need a considerable overhaul and vastly improved accountability, considerably less bloat, and responsibility for several items which police are ill suited to passed over to better suited agencies.

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so do you admit that at the time he wasn't working? He might have gone to Kenosha to do work, but he lef that job to carry out his militia task

You mentioned that he was working, not me. That you have been shown to be wrong is not my fault.

Since he was not working, then he went there as a private individual. A vigilante or militia you could class him as.

He might well have gone there with the best intentions, although bringing a loaded gun is hardly looking to de-escalate the situation.

I really cannot understand why you are going to bat for this guy. He went there to make a stand, and if that meant shooting people then so be it. It ended up exactly as one could have told him it would.

The only reason you are looking to defend him is because he is a Trump supporter. If he had a Biden hat on you would have no qualms in calling him out.

He did exactly what I would have done in the situation he was facing it's nothing to do with him being a Trump supporter he is an American first.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not a lot he can do when the cities that are burning are run by democratic mayor's, some of whom are refusing federal assistance.

I never said that he had such little control but there are some things that he can't control such as the actions of Democratic mayor's in cities that are burning.

https://twitter.com/StreetVet100/status/1300064323449098242?s=09

How many actual "cities" in the US are Republican controlled though?

People living in cities don't vote Republican - Rural and some suburban do for the most part.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

If the best defense they can come up for him is that he went to a riot to "hunt", there's not much more that needs to be said.

gmisk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats one if, the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me' and its over.

Is it though?

And yes...we were hunting....

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats one if, the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me' and its over.

Can you quote the specific statute that basically says "if the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me'" and that's grand?

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He did exactly what I would have done in the situation he was facing it's nothing to do with him being a Trump supporter he is an American first.

So you are defending him because you think he is right?

Really? You agree that he had no choice but to kill those people? That he had no choice but to turn up with a loaded weapon?

He had no business going there, he had no business bringing a gun.

I assume you would defend BLM or other protestors rights to assault police officers if they feel under threat? That is the logical conclusion of your position.

That pretty much anyone can do anything one they feel under threat.

I know you don't believe that, because you have said that the protestors are out of order. So what is the real reason you are out to defend this guy?

Eric Cartman

Carfacemandog wrote: »

If the best defense they can come up for him is that he went to a riot to "hunt", there's not much more that needs to be said.

thats the purpose of the rule not the text of it. I was trying to explain that there are legal ways for a 17 year old to open carry somebody elses gun there.

ofcourse his defence won't be hunting.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

greylake police department cadet training, which includes range based rifle and pistol training. Its more firearms training than most of the antifa nuts have popping round with pistols.

So we can take from that that he was fully versed in weapons handling and had at least some education as to dealing with trouble makers.

Yet he took himself, with all his prior training, into the situation. When he must have known what the possible outcomes could be.

namloc1980

Just for the Trumpists who claim the lefties are gone mad and the perpetrators of domestic terrorism. This article might be of interest which argues that right-wing terrorist and extremists are far more common in the US and have been particularly emboldened under the Trump presidency. https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

Carfacemandog

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He was working as a community lifeguard.

For whom? What city/state/federal government agency or department hired him (at 17 no less) for this role? Or was this a 'self appointed' role, aka entirely made up?

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you quote the specific statute that basically says "if the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me'" and that's grand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin

Possession of a dangerous weapon by anyone under 18 is a class A misdemeanor. Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

WI statute 948.60[38]

Defenses to prosecution under this statute:

Target practice under the supervision of an adult
Members of armed forces or police under 18 in the line of duty
Hunting (either with an adult or having passed hunter's safety)
The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.[39][40]

over 16, barrel over 16 inches long. Job done.

Leroy42

The line of duty is the bit you seem to be ignoring.

But hey I get it. You think it is reasonable for him to have gone there with a loaded weapon.

I assume that when BLM turn up with loaded weapons and start shooting you will be as understanding.