2nd amendment and protection

[Mojo]

If she didn't wear that dress, she wouldn't have been raped.

Seriously?

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously?

People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked because he did something he was legally permitted to do. If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.

 

[sackett]

Dunno why you think that way

People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked because he did something he was legally permitted to do. If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.

Wee Karl Witlesshaus barged into a fight, making himself a combatant -- an armed combatant at that. He was thereby a public menace, and proved it. Until he got arrested, he enjoyed himself, I think.

But I don't much concern myself with a junior brownshirt who got off. He'll be in some sort of new trouble this year or next.

I'm concerned with armed grownup daffballs surging around looking for safe ways to commit outrages. I've always been worried by the likes of that. Not you?

 

[Stacyhs]

If she didn't wear that dress, she wouldn't have been raped.

I see you still can't understand why your analogy is wrong even though it's been clearly explained. Let's try this again...

1. Does a rapist commit a rape regardless of what the victim is wearing? Yes. Otherwise they would not rape women lying in their own beds at night, women out jogging, women in comas, old women, etc.

2. Would Rittenhouse have needed to 'protect himself' by killing two people if he had not taken a rifle to the protest in the first place? No. The reason Rittenhouse was being chased was because:

Around 11:45 p.m. Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse into a used-car lot as Rittenhouse yells "Friendly, friendly, friendly." Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag containing toiletries at Rittenhouse.

* Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum grabbed his gun. A journalist for the Daily Caller, a conservative website, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for the rifle. Rittenhouse fires his gun at Rosenbaum, hitting him four times and killing him.

If Rittenhouse did not have that rifle, none of the above would have happened and he would not have killed two people and shot the arm off a third. Rittenhouse, at age 17, was not even legally allowed to carry that rifle:

Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

If you cannot understand that, then you are either being willfully blind or obtuse.

Because there's no reason to think Rittenhouse went there with the express intent of getting attacked. Duh.

Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could have anticipated that going to that protest with a rifle could well end in violence:

In a video taken by Richard McGinniss, a journalist with the Daily Caller, Mr. Rittenhouse is seen with a rifle and a medic kit, saying he is out to protect local businesses. At that point, Kenosha had experienced violent unrest for two nights that left businesses burned, looted and damaged in response to a video that showed police shooting Mr. Blake in the back seven times.

“People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people,” Mr. Rittenhouse said in the video. “If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That is why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, but I also have my med kit.”

It was not Rittenhouse's "job" to protect anyone or anything; that was the job of the police. He clearly anticipated having to use that rifle.

She went to that bar to find someone to have sex with.

Do you also need to have explained to you the difference between consensual sex and rape?

This is still being asserted without evidence.

Only by you. Rittenhouse may not have been "looking" for a violent confrontation, but he was fully expecting one which is why he took his rifle in the first place.

I suggest you stop digging that hole. It's only getting worse the more you try to defend it.

 

[Stacyhs]

People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked

I don't see anyone here saying that.

because he did something he was legally permitted to do.

Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.

If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.

I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.

 

[Lurch]

https://science.time.com/2013/07/04/from-forests-to-fossil-fuels-u-s-energy-consumption-since-1776/

Wood fuel usage peaked in the late 1800's.

If you don't want to believe we cleared a lot of land for fuel, fine. But there was never any possibility that we could have industrialized without the use of fossil fuels. Our modern world is built on fossil fuels. Even under the most optimistic projections of what might be possible in the future, we could never have gotten to that point without going through a period of intense fossil fuel usage.

And this is what makes Man among the most destructive of infestations ever to inhabit Earth. How many species are we responsible for making extinct? Thousands, easily. Millions? And in such an incredibly short span of time.

Our obscene rapaciousness and quest for growth and dominance makes us as a kind of viral pandemic. Are there sufficient carbon reserves left to burn such that perhaps this unchecked infestation will stop itself through ecosystem ruination? To be sure, at some point the finite resources of all kinds will impose a check. But that high tide of homo sapiens will have been to the detriment of so many creatures.

 

[Delvo]

There's no point in bothering to counter arguments that are so entirely absurd that you already know the person presenting them can't possibly really believe them.

 

[Stacyhs]

There's no point in bothering to counter arguments that are so entirely absurd that you already know the person presenting them can't possibly really believe them.

The problem is that many of them do believe them. The others are just trolls.

 

[Ziggurat]

And this is what makes Man among the most destructive of infestations ever to inhabit Earth.

I’m not interested in your anti human fetish. If you want to join VHEMT, be my guest. But you first.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.

You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.

I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.

You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wee Karl Witlesshaus barged into a fight, making himself a combatant

You’re grasping at straws to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by the fact.

 

[Lurch]

I’m not interested in your anti human fetish. If you want to join VHEMT, be my guest. But you first.

(No idea what VHEMT is...)

It's healthy to take an objective view of the larger picture. To blinker one's self in a provincial mindset is what leads, for instance, to societal stultification, cultish behavior and, ultimately, avoidable harm.

 

[Lurch]

You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.



You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.

"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun, due to being underage. This whole fiasco began with an illegal act, before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.

Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?

 

[Ziggurat]

"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun

He was not the legal owner. He did not need to be.

This whole fiasco began with an illegal act

The court said otherwise.

before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.

The gun never crossed state lines. State lines had absolutely no legal relevance to any of the events that occurred.

Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?

No, we will not. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand the laws of self defense. Likewise, if you don't know why Rittenhouse was rightly acquitted, then you don't understand the laws of self defense.

 

[Ziggurat]

(No idea what VHEMT is...)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Since we're such a blight on the earth, we should apparently go extinct.

It's healthy to take an objective view of the larger picture. To blinker one's self in a provincial mindset is what leads, for instance, to societal stultification, cultish behavior and, ultimately, avoidable harm.

Calling humankind an "infestation" is not an objective view. And "provincial mindset" is a pretty good description of the idea that our modern society would have been possible absent the extensive use of fossil fuels. Again, even if you think we can move away from them in the future, we could not have in the past, not without remaining pre-industrial (which has its own costs I doubt most people would be willing to pay).

 

[Norman Alexander]

You’re grasping at straws to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by the fact.

You’re grasping at "facts" to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by reality.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.

You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.

I've researched further and found out why the charge for illegally possessing a gun was dropped: a technicality in WI law aimed at allowing 16-17 years to have rifles to hunt:

Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafsi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.

Then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican, signed a law that year that expanded the prohibition to include short-barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars and nunchakus. Four years later, Thompson signed another law extending the prohibition to any firearm. But that law also allowed minors to possess long guns for hunting as long as the barrels were at least a foot long.

So if it was legal for a 17 year old to own an assault style rifle...which is beyond ludicrous in itself...why did he have someone else buy it for him in WI? Because he lived in IL where it was illegal for him to own a firearm and he knew it:

However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition.

Rittenhouse did not have a FOID card.

Quote:

I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.

You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.

Sigh. I didn't do that. YOU made that false analogy and can't seem to get it through your head why it's so damn wrong.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself.

She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.

1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.

You made the crappy analogy, not me.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun, due to being underage. This whole fiasco began with an illegal act, before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.

Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?

See my post above. KR did not cross state lines with the gun. He couldn't legally buy or own one in IL so he had a friend in WI buy it there and he picked it up there. He knew what he was doing. If he'd taken it into IL, he could have been charged with illegal possession.

The idea of a kid under 18 being allowed to own an assault style rifle is so stupid that anyone who isn't an idiot should be able to see it. And yet....

 

[Ziggurat]

1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.

Correct: he doesn't have to rape her. And Rosenbaum didn't have to attack Rittenhouse. They choose to, and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle (both legal) doesn't absolve a rapist or Rosenbaum of responsibility for their choices, neither of which is justified.

See how it works? No, you probably don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

You’re grasping at "facts" to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by reality.

“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” - Homer Simpson, and evidently Norman Alexander too