Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 11:26:56 AM
You can't prove that I'm wrong. Do you think Scalia was a liberal? Did Scalia had a liberal agenda? Your 2nd amendment argue doesn't fly.  Go back to yelling at the sky.

So Scalia wrote states law now?

Let me ask you this. If some state passed a law curtailing your Right to free speech, as in hate speech, would you quietly sit in the corner or ignore it?

Quote from: BayouCountry on November 21, 2020, 01:56:16 PM
No, he is not a criminal until he is convicted of a crime.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention an age limit.  The constitution is the law of the land, not state gun laws.  Calling Rittenhouse a criminal is slander considering the possibility that his right to bear arms could go to the Supreme Court and he could be found to be within his rights to carry a gun. He would most likely lose on precedent.

I hope you have the same opinion that illegal aliens are criminals.  That is federal law.

I hope the kid gets off if the facts show he was attacked and defended himself.  That's up to a jury to decide.  The state can then bring up their case that he illegally acquired the firearm.  Again, that will be up to a jury to decide if he is a "criminal."

He's claiming Judge, Jury and Hangman, it would appear.

Quote from: Solar on November 21, 2020, 02:51:33 PM
So Scalia wrote states law now?

Let me ask you this. If some state passed a law curtailing your Right to free speech, as in hate speech, would you quietly sit in the corner or ignore it?

I never said Scalia wrote state law. The states already have laws against hate speech. What are you doing about it sky screamer?

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 02:18:51 PM
Yes border jumpers are criminals. You don't have to be convicted of anything to be called a criminal. Rittenhouse is a criminal because he broke firearms laws. I have never once argued that be should be charged with anything other than his felony firearms crimes.  The argument might possibly made is that he knew there was going to be trouble because he felt he needed to carry an illegal firearm to protect himself and shouldn't have been there in the first place. He had no right to have the firearm he used to kill 2 people and injure 1. Don't get me wrong when I make that statement. The 2 that got killed deserved what they got. The 1 that got injured deserved to be killed. Rittenhouse broke firearm laws that the Supreme Court have already determined to be constitutional. The Supreme Court has already determined that restrictions on the 2nd amendment are constitutional.  Any rights under the 2nd amendment do not apply to Rittenhouse according to existing state and federal laws. Rittenhouse and his  parents and his accomplice accomplice will possibly be held civilly liable.

Criminal

1: one who has committed a crime

2: a person who has been convicted of a crime

If a jury finds this kid not guilty are you still going to call him a criminal?

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 03:03:58 PM
I never said Scalia wrote state law. The states already have laws against hate speech. What are you doing about it sky screamer?

I see, you have nothing so you drop Scalia's name in hopes of making your point appear relevant, which it is not. And you claim I'm screaming at the sky?
Dude, you're grasping at straws now.
I see you avoided my question though.

Quote from: Possum on November 21, 2020, 03:06:45 PM
If a jury finds this kid not guilty are you still going to call him a criminal?

We'll have to see what happens.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 03:09:06 PM
We'll have to see what happens.

In your opinion?

Quote from: Solar on November 21, 2020, 03:06:53 PM
I see, you have nothing so you drop Scalia's name in hopes of making your point appear relevant, which it is not. And you claim I'm screaming at the sky?
Dude, you're grasping at straws now.
I see you avoided my question though.

No I didn't just drop Scalia's name for no reason. He was the one that wrote in the Helker decision that the 2nd amendment was not unlimited and the restrictions are allowed on it. The feds and states have gun control laws that limit the 2nd amendment.  So your argument the Rittenhouse has 2nd amendment right is utter BS sky screamer. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that many times.  Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of an illegal firearm that he killed 2 people and injured 1 with. He's a criminal  and not a hero.
So was Scalia a liberal with a liberal agenda or not sky screamer?

Quote from: Possum on November 21, 2020, 03:06:45 PM
If a jury finds this kid not guilty are you still going to call him a criminal?

It doesn't matter what some nobody (which includes me) on the internet thinks about the character of someone else. However, I do believe that people in positions of "power" (media especially) should be held accountable for their slander. I hope the victim (Kyle) gets his reward just like that student has.

That being said, I question K.C.'s loyalty to our way of life.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 21, 2020, 03:23:49 PM
It doesn't matter what some nobody (which includes me) on the internet thinks about the character of someone else. However, I do believe that people in positions of "power" (media especially) should be held accountable for their slander. I hope the victim (Kyle) gets his reward just like that student has.

That being said, I question K.C.'s loyalty to our way of life.

What slander? And whether or not you think I'm conservative or not I really don't care. Rittenhouse is a stupid fucking kid that has now ruined his life for nothing. He's a criminal and not a hero.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 04:05:17 PM
What slander? And whether or not you think I'm conservative or not I really don't care. Rittenhouse is a stupid fucking kid that has now ruined his life for nothing. He's a criminal and not a hero.

Stop acting like you are the only one Solar has attacked for their opinion or stance.

Nobody said you are saying slander. I am saying that both our opinions don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Media should be held accountable for their slander.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 21, 2020, 04:51:25 PM
Stop acting like you are the only one Solar has attacked for their opinion or stance.

Nobody said you are saying slander. I am saying that both our opinions don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Media should be held accountable for their slander.

What has been slander in the Rittenhouse case. WHAT SLANDER?  I really couldn't care less if you or sky screamer or anyone else attacks me for my opinions. Aleast I base my opinions on facts

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
What has been slander in the Rittenhouse case. WHAT SLANDER?  I really couldn't care less if you or sky screamer or anyone else attacks me for my opinions. Aleast I base my opinions on facts

Again, nobody said you said any slander.

You sound emotional.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 03:14:37 PM
No I didn't just drop Scalia's name for no reason. He was the one that wrote in the Helker decision that the 2nd amendment was not unlimited and the restrictions are allowed on it. The feds and states have gun control laws that limit the 2nd amendment.  So your argument the Rittenhouse has 2nd amendment right is utter BS sky screamer. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that many times.  Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of an illegal firearm that he killed 2 people and injured 1 with. He's a criminal  and not a hero.
So was Scalia a liberal with a liberal agenda or not sky screamer?

So you're OK with gutting the 2nd? Lib...

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 21, 2020, 05:38:24 PM
Again, nobody said you said any slander.

You sound emotional.

Yep, to the point of unstable.