The Angry Violent Right

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Spare you?  I'm trying to converse with you.  I asked that you not bring non-relevant facts into a debate.  I called you nothing, insinuated nothing.

 

If you can't handle that, you shouldn't even discuss things on the board.

 

 

On the bolded above, Maybe?  That's your reason for bringing up criminal record of people who were gunned down?  Because maybe it's relevant?  Pure garbage argument brother...it has no bearing and you know it.

 

If you want maybes to be part of the argument then maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was brought up by parents who beat him and he played too many violent video games which caused this whole ordeal. 

 

Presupposition used to form WEAK a$$ conclusions is not a good way to make any points.  It's a great way to show how bad of an argument you're waging.

 

Now, once again, I ask that you bring only facts that are relevant to discussions to keep it on point.

 

I never said YOU did.  I said YOU have never called out anyone on this board but me and I have given you examples.  You have rules for me but not anyone else it appears.  
 

As far as the original discussion, MY opinion is that the shooter was justified based on being peaceful until attacked and in the shooters view, in fear for his life.  
 

Others bring up some mass murderer cases to this one and you breeze on by that post, yet it has no relevance for the discussion at hand. You almost tried to justify the post.  Crazy how you have selective amnesia when it comes to relevant posts.  
 

Now I will ask you to have the same rules for everyone or no one.  Please decide.  
 

 

[Moiraine]

26 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

To the boleded: The mass murderer cases you're speaking of...I disagreed with the person bringing up mass shooters and comparing them to KR immediately and said that it was a bad comparison. 

 

 

It's not a bad comparison though. The comparison isn't about whether KR is like a mass shooter. It's pretty clear to us, who have the luxury of knowing all of the available facts, that Rittenhouse didn't go there intending to kill a bunch of people, and it should be obvious I wasn't making that claim. Archetype didn't seem to understand that as he mentioned how horrible the mass shooters were when stating the comparison is bad.

 

The comparison is about how people should be expected/allowed to react when they see someone like Rittenhouse waving a rifle around. They can't read the person's mind, and the person waving the gun around should not be able to easily use self defense as an excuse if people become agitated and try to disarm him.

[Archy1221]

20 hours ago, teachercd said:

As an anti-gun person, I am totally for this.

 

I would go as far as to say that if you carry in public that the police should be called on you immediately.  If everything checks out, great.  Go back to playing wild wild west.  If one thing is out of order, anything at all, you lose your gun.  I mean anything.    Taillight out, expired plates, anything. 

My issue with this would be if the state has open carry laws and the person is open carrying in accordance with the law, then the person would be presumed guilty of something in your scenario which goes against our system. 
 

similar to what some protests are about in regards to policing within the AA community.  Stopped and presumed guilty of something 

[Moiraine]

41 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

Unfortunately, in states with open carry licenses...the people should be expected to know the law and know that it's within the rights of the individual carrying a gun to carry one and if they are uncomfy with it, to remove themselves from that area where the individual exercising their rights is located in.  BTW, with open carry it is different than 'brandishing' a weapon...so at no time could he unholster the weapon and wave it about or point it at someone in a threatening manner or he would be in violation of the law.  The way AR15's are holstered provide the individual with access to be able to shoot the gun without unholstering it.

 

I know that's silly and stupid, but it's a constitutionally protected right.

 

As for if KR shot first, there is documented evidence on video that he didn't...that he reacted to being shot at.  At which time a person tried to lunge toward him.  He had no idea if this person had shot at him or not.  Which is why I think he has a good self defense argument.

 

 

There have been mass shootings in open carry states. This isn't really an argument against what I'm saying. I'm guessing the Venn diagram of people who think more guns in the hands of citizens would help stop mass shootings and people who think those who tried to disarm KR are in the wrong is close to a circle. They may very well have been stupid, but they also may very well have thought they were stopping more people from getting hurt.

A major part of my argument is that the laws are stupid. I'm not claiming he can't argue self defense or that he won't win that argument. I think it is f#&%ing stupid that someone can wave a gun around (how many people are gonna know or care the difference between it being holstered or not or which is legal?) in a crowd when there have been so many mass shootings, then if someone tries to disarm them they can get shot and the person can just get away with it. Then you have people on the right saying we need more citizens with guns trying to stop mass shooters. Someone like this kid is going to look like a potential mass shooter to a lot of people who see him.

There is only one incident where there is an argument on whether he shot first. He shot multiple times. After he shot the first person he had "shot first" for everyone else involved.

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

My issue with this would be if the state has open carry laws and the person is open carrying in accordance with the law, then the person would be presumed guilty of something in your scenario which goes against our system. 
 

similar to what some protests are about in regards to policing within the AA community.  Stopped and presumed guilty of something 

Sure, but you can all the cops anytime you want for anything.

 

It isn't my job to decide if Jonny Ringo is guilty of something, it is being a good citizen to call the cops when you see some dork with a gun walking around Main St.

 

Call the cops, cops come check it out.  If the dude parked over the parking lot lines, if the dude littered, if the dude jaywalked, you take away his gun.  Because if you can't follow all the rules you don't get to have a gun out in the open.  

 

That is more than fair.  Even the biggest gun lovers in America would agree with that because each big time gun lover loves talking about how safe they are with their gun and how responsible they are with their guns. 

35 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Agreed...people won't know the difference of brandishing/holstering a weapon and they definitely are ignorant of the law for sure in many places.

 

Hopefully, we get better laws in the future.  I think introducing guns to any situation that isn't hunting is dumb...but I won't win popularity contests with that opinion.

I don't think you need anything for hunting that can hold more than one round at at time, period. 

[RedDenver]

 

[commando]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

i wonder what he thinks he deserves?  sprinkles?

[Scarlet]

More murder talk...of people simply doing the job they signed on for, reporting the facts, and defending democracy.

[Moiraine]

Crazies are going to crazy. It's people who are supposed to lead the country who need to speak up. I'm tired of people saying leaders' words don't matter. That is asinine. Why even have a head coach or a leader of an organization if what they say doesn't impact people?

[BigRedBuster]

7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Crazies are going to crazy. It's people who are supposed to lead the country who need to speak up. I'm tired of people saying leaders' words don't matter. That is asinine. Why even have a head coach or a leader of an organization if what they say doesn't impact people?

Many many moons ago, I would have conversations on here with someone who would claim CEOs don't do jack s#!t and they do nothing to contribute to the success of the company.

 

That same person would be in the football forum complaining that the only way we can become a good football program again is with good coaching.

 

[RedDenver]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[knapplc]

 

[commando]

[DevoHusker]