Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is every single article on Rittenhouse in the media against self defense?
Because people using guns for actual self defense, are almost always using them against far-left liberals who want to control them and steal things, one way or another.
And that scares the daylights out of people who write articles in the media. Because THEY, the article-writers, want to control people and steal things, one way or another.
And the only self defense I saw in the Rittenhouse case, after watching hours of testimony and video and reading court documents, were those who assessed him as a threat and tried to disarm him.
We all have the right to bear arms, but that comes with responsibility in understanding your perceived threat. If you are a child illegally open carrying a weapon in a high pressure environment, anyone with an ounce of sense will assess the thread appropriately. When you *choose* to illegally open carry a weapon in a high-pressure environment, you lose the ability to responsibly say you are acting in self defense.
Rittenhouse was a minor legally open carrying a firearm.
I am all for self defense and my right to it. That being said: I am against the notion that you can bring the danger and then become afraid of it and be able to rely on self defense when the situation you caused gets out of hand. . Child Kyle was the aggressor by parading around with his toy. There would have been no incident if not for his arrogant display.
How so ? There problem isn't with him, it is with individuals that are triggered, and become aggressive over the sight of individuals non aggressively carrying firearms. Don't forget, there were many others that were also doing this, and even the police saw it. In fact they thanked the group KR was apart of, and gave them water.
Now I won't argue the fact that better decisions could have been made in this situation. First off, starting at the top, with the Governor, then the rioters and lastly, the individuals that chose to help the police that were completely overwhelmed with the violence.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,982,927 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee
OP can you deny that the right leaning media has published anything but support for him or 2A rights? Isn't his acquittal the actual story?
As an experienced photojournalist (as you stated)why haven't you put together a story to be published. Maybe the broader group doesn't see it as a 2A/self defense argument when the person places himself in a known dangerous situation that the police had warned to stay clear of and brings an intimidating weapon. Now the Lamont Aubrey case, thats a shame he didn't have weapon to defend himself.
I agree with you about Aubrey. Armed people don't get bashed.
I don't know that Tucker Carlson exploiting that boy qualifies as coverage, or right wing extremist media is equal time. My post was that I have not seen ONE single article in the MSM supporting the right of self defense.
To answer your other question. It's not that easy to publish, unless you work for free. I left the newspaper biz 20+ years ago because for the most part the pay is s**t, you have to bite your tongue, deal with liberal weenies all day, and I could no longer accomodate the corporate BS. I reached a point where I could no longer be a neutral observer on issues and had to speak out. But speaking out doesn't transfer to an income.
And the only self defense I saw in the Rittenhouse case, after watching hours of testimony and video and reading court documents, were those who assessed him as a threat and tried to disarm him.
We all have the right to bear arms, but that comes with responsibility in understanding your perceived threat. If you are a child illegally open carrying a weapon in a high pressure environment, anyone with an ounce of sense will assess the thread appropriately. When you *choose* to illegally open carry a weapon in a high-pressure environment, you lose the ability to responsibly say you are acting in self defense.
Rittenhouse was not illegally carrying.
And the jury didn't buy that argument.
You don't lose your right to self defense based on where you are or how others perceive you.
I am all for self defense and my right to it. That being said: I am against the notion that you can bring the danger and then become afraid of it and be able to rely on self defense when the situation you caused gets out of hand. . Child Kyle was the aggressor by parading around with his toy. There would have been no incident if not for his arrogant display.
So you think that it's ok to attack someone simply because they're carrying a weapon?
Not only is that legally wrong, it's downright stupid.
And two of Kyle's attackers used weapons against him
And the only self defense I saw in the Rittenhouse case, after watching hours of testimony and video and reading court documents, were those who assessed him as a threat and tried to disarm him.
We all have the right to bear arms, but that comes with responsibility in understanding your perceived threat. If you are a child illegally open carrying a weapon in a high pressure environment, anyone with an ounce of sense will assess the thread appropriately. When you *choose* to illegally open carry a weapon in a high-pressure environment, you lose the ability to responsibly say you are acting in self defense.
Please quote the law that he was illegally carrying.
Be specific.
Maybe send it to the judge? I mean, I'm sure he and the prosecutors NEVER discussed this.
***Another poster who knows nothing about the case.
So, self-defense is now a kid taking an assault rifle, traveling to a distant community, standing in front of an empty car lot, waving a rifle, and shooting people because THEY felt threatened by his presence with an assault rifle?
So, self-defense is now a kid taking an assault rifle, traveling to a distant community, standing in front of an empty car lot, waving a rifle, and shooting people because THEY felt threatened by his presence with an assault rifle?
Webster would be shocked i tell you. Shocked !
Are you high?
Go back and watch the trial footage and testimonies.
He did NOT "take an assault rifle" ...that was a legally owned AR15 and he traveled maybe 20 miles from his home and did NOT travel with the rifle.
He did NOT "waive it in the air" (...like the prosecutor recklessly did in court) but had it slung over his shoulder, when he was hit in the back twice by the first guy, with a skateboard. After the first strike of the skateboard, he tried to run away from the group, but they surrounded him and began saying they were going to kill him. He warned them all...several times...then shot them in self defense as they charged him.
You must just love making sh*t up, because literally NOTHING you wrote was close to being truthful.
They’re against self defense because it wasn’t happening to them, and Rittenhouse is a gun toting meanie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
