The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

[BobTheCoward]

Wouldn't having a Camera instead of a gun have protected the property much better?
Why wasn't he documenting the Protests instead of waving a gun around in Public?

I have no opinion on that. My interest is limited to the implications he used deadly force to protect property.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have no opinion on that. My interest is limited to the implications he used deadly force to protect property.

Truth is he didn't protect the property he ran, he could have documented the destruction and who caused it, but he ran, after someone was shot, he didn't dial 911 and ask help he ran.
The victims are the ones who were shot and Injured because of someone untrained and irresponsible, who valued property over life.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Truth is he didn't protect the property he ran, he could have documented the destruction and who caused it, but he ran, after someone was shot, he didn't dial 911 and ask help he ran.
The victims are the ones who were shot and Injured because of someone untrained and irresponsible, who valued property over life.

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

The hard Truth is if he had stayed home people would still be Alive.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The hard Truth is if he had stayed home people would still be Alive.

Again, I have no opinion about that. I'm only concerned about the argument he used deadly force to defend property.

 

[sackett]

Chainsaw my man, you are bobbing for reason, and you'll only get your face wet.

My take on wee Karl Scheissmaul, the Boy Brownshirt, is simpler, and based on firearms technology: An AR15 or a clone thereof is useless for any purpose* but shooting people. So says this gunsmith's son and plenty of people agree.



* Okay, you can take one to the range and turn money into smoke (as a poster here once put it) bing-banging at targets. Boring, wasteful, adolescent shooting. No wonder it appealed to the likes of Kerl Scheissimhosen.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Except for the part where he did not use deadly force to protect property. As you said, he ran.

Chainsaw my man, you are bobbing for reason, and you'll only get your face wet.

My take on wee Karl Scheissmaul, the Boy Brownshirt, is simpler, and based on firearms technology: An AR15 or a clone thereof is useless for any purpose* but shooting people. So says this gunsmith's son and plenty of people agree.



* Okay, you can take one to the range and turn money into smoke (as a poster here once put it) bing-banging at targets. Boring, wasteful, adolescent shooting. No wonder it appealed to the likes of Kerl Scheissimhosen.

I prefer a good six pound Canon but they are a little heavy to carry.
Or a Smitt Rubin.

 

[smartcooky]

Excuse me for mixing them up. They seem like peas in a pod. It's true that it seems Boebert has not publicly called for others to be assassinated, only praised those who do, but I was careless....

... but excusable. They're much of a muchness... Marjorie Boebert-Cawthorn

What is wrong with you leftist clowns, how could you get the blonde pile of **** confused with the brunette pile of ******

The colour of their hair is unimportant.

 

[bruto]

Again, I have no opinion about that. I'm only concerned about the argument he used deadly force to defend property.

Technically it would seem you are right, hence the controversial verdict. But one could also say that if he was on a mission to protect property, took a deadly weapon to that job, and ended up using it in connection with that job, it was an invitation to bloodshed that began with him.

I think he squeaked through a passive-aggressive loophole, creating a situation in which he could do what he did, and even if the verdict was necessary under the circumstances, I would still consider him blameworthy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Technically it would seem you are right, hence the controversial verdict. But one could also say that if he was on a mission to protect property, took a deadly weapon to that job, and ended up using it in connection with that job, it was an invitation to bloodshed that began with him.

I think he squeaked through a passive-aggressive loophole, creating a situation in which he could do what he did, and even if the verdict was necessary under the circumstances, I would still consider him blameworthy.

I'm not sure it is a loophole

 

[bruto]

I'm not sure it is a loophole

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

Sorry, I was a little pithy. I think the people who have worked to expand self defense law are content that the situation you described occurred.This is a feature to them, not a bug.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sorry, I was a little pithy. I think the people who have worked to expand self defense law are content that the situation you described occurred.This is a feature to them, not a bug.

The Probable Consequences of this is protesters will Arm themselves better and shoot First least they be shot.
That's why most people with brains think Vigilantes are a bad Idea.

 

[smartcooky]

I rather think it is, in the sense that by showing up with a gun, he was the author of an event for which he was then able to disclaim responsibility. Of course we can't know for sure how he thought or anticipated, but we do know he decided to go to a demonstration where mayhem could be expected, and brought an automatic weapon. I am guessing that had the event under question not occurred, he would have continued until something like it did, and the fact that he managed to get away with shooting 3 people owing to their intemperance before acting on his own counts as a loophole.

Well, we actually do know, but the jury were never allowed to see it.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't find her comment offensive at all. I don't want to get too far into the Rittenhouse case, but he was found not guilty of all charges. And a Christian saying "God bless him" is really no big deal.

Certainly there is plenty of legitimate criticism to lob at her, but this isn't one of those cases, imo.

The comment itself isn't offensive; the motive behind it is. It's just her contribution to the lionizing of Rittenhouse by the right wing as some kind of "patriot" hero. You know, like this from Tucker C:

"The picture that emerges is of a working-class kid who sincerely believes in America. His community falls apart, and he tries his best to do the right thing, at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing. But he does. And in return for that, the state, under political pressure, throws him in prison."

Rittenhouse is being used for political purposes all right...by the likes of TC, Boebert, and MTG who wants him to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. For what? Making a stupid decision as a minor to get a gun through illegal means and put himself where he had no business being.

 

[Warp12]

The comment itself isn't offensive; the motive behind it is. It's just her contribution to the lionizing of Rittenhouse by the right wing as some kind of "patriot" hero. You know, like this from Tucker C:

"The picture that emerges is of a working-class kid who sincerely believes in America. His community falls apart, and he tries his best to do the right thing, at a time when almost no one else in the community is trying to do the right thing. But he does. And in return for that, the state, under political pressure, throws him in prison."

Rittenhouse is being used for political purposes all right...by the likes of TC, Boebert, and MTG who wants him to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. For what? Making a stupid decision as a minor to get a gun through illegal means and put himself where he had no business being.

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left. I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left.

Whataboutism #1

I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

Almost all her comments are ridiculous and/or offensive. Especially the elevator story.

 

[Warp12]

Whataboutism #1

Like clockwork. Point out Dem hypocrisy, and the magic word comes out.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, both sides should avoid politicizing such cases"...we get this garbage. It's pathetic.

 

[trustbutverify]

Well, I can see your point about politicizing these cases...but this is also done frequently by the left. I think this is being blown out of proportion. Now, some of Boebert's other comments are simply ridiculous. Especially the elevator story.

Boebert's a clown. You know this.

 

[Stacyhs]

Like clockwork. Point out Dem hypocrisy, and the magic word comes out.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, both sides should avoid politicizing such cases"...we get this garbage. It's pathetic.

We certainly do get garbage. And it is whataboutism whether you like it or not.