What is an assault rifle? A black one? If it was brown would it be an assault rifle or just a rifle?
Kish, who fired first?
If you think that 17 year old kids should go around with deadly weapons as vigilantes or as self-appointed security forces, then there is nothing to talk about on this one. There simply is no justification for it.
Oh. So beliefs are more relevant than facts. If he was shot at first, so be it? He should just catch bullets?
It is a messy situation, one that is not resolved by an ideology that Trump's the facts.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, Babbitt had been shot by a 17-year old kid who loved Antifa and felt like there were too few Capitol police to defend the Capitol that day. What on earth would right-wing media be saying? What would the self-dubbed patriots who threatened Mike Pence's life have to say about that young man's efforts to defend the Capitol from Babbitt?
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Oh. So beliefs are more relevant than facts. If he was shot at first, so be it? He should just catch bullets?
It is a messy situation, one that is not resolved by an ideology that Trump's the facts.
The fact is that he had no business being there in the first place. THAT is a fact. The fact is that he had no business there being there armed. THAT is a fact. The fact is he had no right to appoint himself as security forces. THAT is a fact.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Kishkumen wrote:The fact is that he had no business being there in the first place. THAT is a fact. The fact is that he had no business there being there armed. THAT is a fact. The fact is he had no right to appoint himself as security forces. THAT is a fact.
The other fact is that pro-Jan 6 / pro-Kyle folks are in a fork. If Kyle was justified to shoot anyone he wanted because he felt threatened, then how much more so were the cops at the capital justified to shoot their attackers.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
Oh. So beliefs are more relevant than facts. If he was shot at first, so be it? He should just catch bullets?
It is a messy situation, one that is not resolved by an ideology that Trump's the facts.
The fact is that he had no business being there in the first place. THAT is a fact. The fact is that he had no business there being there armed. THAT is a fact. The fact is he had no right to appoint himself as security forces. THAT is a fact.
So is it a fact that the people that shot him or threatened him were justified in doing so? You are not wrong about the kid. And those things do not qualify him for a death sentence by mob.
Kishkumen wrote:The fact is that he had no business being there in the first place. THAT is a fact. The fact is that he had no business there being there armed. THAT is a fact. The fact is he had no right to appoint himself as security forces. THAT is a fact.
The other fact is that pro-Jan 6 / pro-Kyle folks are in a fork. If Kyle was justified to shoot anyone he wanted because he felt threatened, then how much more so were the cops at the capital justified to shoot their attackers.
The other fact is that pro-Jan 6 / pro-Kyle folks are in a fork. If Kyle was justified to shoot anyone he wanted because he felt threatened, then how much more so were the cops at the capital justified to shoot their attackers.
Absolutely justified. Whereas Kyle ought to have been charged with manslaughter, and should be convicted of the same, and serve hard time.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
So is it a fact that the people that shot him or threatened him were justified in doing so? You are not wrong about the kid. And those things do not qualify him for a death sentence by mob.
You are jumping to conclusions by making a huge leap. What death sentence? He was not killed. He would not have been attacked (should not have been anyway) had he not been where he should not have been and brandishing a deadly weapon. I am not aware that anyone shot *at* him until he had already slaughtered two people.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Game changer. Good thing Twitter and this forum are not also the prosecutor, jury and judge.
Your grammar correction is accurate. My bad.
I asked earlier. Who fired the first shot?
Immaterial. In a confused situation like this, shots are fired. It is not clear whether they have any relationship with Kyle. Being untrained and in illegal possession of a deadly firearm, Rittenhouse treated the sound of gunfire as a personal threat. This only goes to show that people like Kyle should not appoint themselves as volunteer security wielding deadly weapons.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”