Alright, that's enough, y'all are going to bed early with no dinner if this shit doesn't stop.

There are allegations against a person made by a political hack DA that is trying to keep their city from being burned to the ground had they not charged Kyle.  So charge they did, big deal.  It is not proof of guilt.

Just because a local jurisdiction enacts a law does not make it constitutional.  There is no age mentioned in the 2A, in fact back then the life expectancy was most died at a young age.  It was not unusual for very young men to take up arms.  Think Civil War which came much later than our independence.  Therefore a 17 year old with a semi-auto .223 cal weapon should in no way be illegal.  Maybe that case needs to go to the Supreme Court?

Kyle was there to help protect local businesses from being looted and burned.  Militia?  Age be damned, did Kyle not have the right to help protect the city when the police were no where to be found?  There are many laws on the books that are not constitutional, but until someone brings an action to change that we have this kind of bullshit.

Kyle will be offered a plea deal to a misdemeanor.  I hope he refuses and takes his case to the Supreme Court.  These restrictions of any type on the 2A are unconstitutional.  And yes, the Vegas shooter had every right to the rifles and the bump stocks.  He did an illegal act of murder, but as far as I'm concerned there were no weapons violations of any type.

No one is a hero, that comes later in life as a recognition of a deed.  Kyle was an American enjoying his constitutional rights as such.  We need more of this, not less.  State laws do not trump the Constitution.

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

You sound emotional.

You're the one that said there was slander in the Rittenhouse case. I'm asking what slander?

Quote from: Solar on November 21, 2020, 06:00:59 PM
So you're OK with gutting the 2nd? Lib...

Ok first off I'm obviously not a Supreme Court Justice so I have nothing to do with gutting the 2nd amendment sky screamer. 2nd of all I'm not a lib. The Supreme Court is who had heard these cases and said they are constitutional and legal. Not me.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 07:06:42 PM
Ok first off I'm obviously not a Supreme Court Justice so I have nothing to do with gutting the 2nd amendment sky screamer. 2nd of all I'm not a lib. The Supreme Court is who had heard these cases and said they are constitutional and legal. Not me.

Well, you did get one thing correct, you're not a liberal....you're a flaming LWNJ socialist.....

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 07:06:42 PM
Ok first off I'm obviously not a Supreme Court Justice so I have nothing to do with gutting the 2nd amendment sky screamer. 2nd of all I'm not a lib. The Supreme Court is who had heard these cases and said they are constitutional and legal. Not me.

If a jury finds him not guilty, or the da drops charges, will you still call him a criminal? Another question, in your opinion, had he been 18 would you still be screaming he is " a stupid fucking kid " " Rittenhouse is a fucking criminal." In other words, do you have a problem with what he did or his age?

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 21, 2020, 07:06:42 PM
Ok first off I'm obviously not a Supreme Court Justice so I have nothing to do with gutting the 2nd amendment sky screamer. 2nd of all I'm not a lib. The Supreme Court is who had heard these cases and said they are constitutional and legal. Not me.

And still you're avoiding answering the question.
Are you OK with some states writing laws curtailing Free Speech?
That is exactly what you're doing here, States wrote laws curtailing the 2nd and you're all for it, so I guess it's safe to say, you're for stifling the First Amendment as well.

Quote from: Possum on November 22, 2020, 03:26:27 AM
If a jury finds him not guilty, or the da drops charges, will you still call him a criminal? Another question, in your opinion, had he been 18 would you still be screaming he is " a stupid fucking kid " " Rittenhouse is a fucking criminal." In other words, do you have a problem with what he did or his age?

This is what happens when one drops all critical thought and reacts solely on emotion. They lose all control and claim others are screaming at the sky.
Fuckin hilarious!   

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2020, 04:39:23 AM
This is what happens when one drops all critical thought and reacts solely on emotion. They lose all control and claim others are screaming at the sky.
Fuckin hilarious!   

What I see him being so upset with Rittenhouse for is not even a crime in some states. Certainly not guilty of anything for all the name calling. This would be a far greater country if MORE kids were like Rittenhouse and took up arms to protect their neighbors. Screaming "  Rittenhouse is a fucking criminal." is sending a very strong liberal minded message to everyone. Are some people so intent on seeing this kid guilty that 17 year olds are not entitled to presumptuous of innocence? If the argument is that "those" dead people would still be alive had Rittenhouse not been there, is the solution to ban everyone who would protect property? Are we such a nanny state now that we see the "crime" of a 17 year old having a gun over riding the fact that the kid showed remarkably courage in helping his neighbors? And what is the big deal of a 17 year old having a gun, first off where I live a 17 is a man, second, I was 12 when I got my first gun and bought my son his first when he was 13. Guess I am a " fucking criminal" too.

Quote from: Possum on November 22, 2020, 05:02:37 AM
What I see him being so upset with Rittenhouse for is not even a crime in some states. Certainly not guilty of anything for all the name calling. This would be a far greater country if MORE kids were like Rittenhouse and took up arms to protect their neighbors. Screaming "  Rittenhouse is a fucking criminal." is sending a very strong liberal minded message to everyone. Are some people so intent on seeing this kid guilty that 17 year olds are not entitled to presumptuous of innocence? If the argument is that "those" dead people would still be alive had Rittenhouse not been there, is the solution to ban everyone who would protect property? Are we such a nanny state now that we see the "crime" of a 17 year old having a gun over riding the fact that the kid showed remarkably courage in helping his neighbors? And what is the big deal of a 17 year old having a gun, first off where I live a 17 is a man, second, I was 12 when I got my first gun and bought my son his first when he was 13. Guess I am a " fucking criminal" too.

I agree! I have no idea what mental block he has stuck in his head, but not all laws are good, some are outright stupid, and just because they were passed with an intent on protecting, they also stifle those who abide by the law.

Don't try and make sense of this, he is running solely on emotion and refuses to see that a law was passed unconstitutionally, but no one ever stood up to challenge it.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2020, 05:09:23 AM
I agree! I have no idea what mental block he has stuck in his head, but not all laws are good, some are outright stupid, and just because they were passed with an intent on protecting, they also stifle those who abide by the law.

Don't try and make sense of this, he is running solely on emotion and refuses to see that a law was passed unconstitutionally, but no one ever stood up to challenge it.

There are no laws that Rittenhouse broke that are unconstitutional. They have been challenged many times in the Supreme Court and been upheld sky screamer. Rittenhouse broke those laws and he is a criminal. It's going to be even worse after January 20, 2021.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 22, 2020, 08:26:32 AM
There are no laws that Rittenhouse broke that are unconstitutional. They have been challenged many times in the Supreme Court and been upheld sky screamer. Rittenhouse broke those laws and he is a criminal. It's going to be even worse after January 20, 2021.

Answer the question emotional one!

Talk about fuckin stupid? They literally must have hired FUX advertising agency. They literally just killed off their company! Sooo sad...





Black Rifle Coffee Condemns Kyle Rittenhouse, May Dump Sponsorship Of Media Defending Him


Black Rifle Coffee is under fire from conservatives this weekend after it came out in opposition to alleged Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse wearing their t-shirt in a photo, saying the company does not engage in "legal advocacy" and seemingly threatening to end its sponsorship with The Blaze for posting the photo of the 17-year-old.
Initially, Black Rifle Coffee released a statement insisting that "we do not support legal advocacy efforts. We do not sponsor nor do we have a relationship with the 17-year-old facing charges in Kenosha, WI," as reported by Media Right News, who also reported that the company would end its advertising relationship with The Blaze over the image of Rittenhouse wearing their t-shirt.

https://nationalfile.com/black-rifle-coffee-condemns-kyle-rittenhouse-may-dump-sponsorship-of-media-defending-him/


Screw em, I just placed an order with  https://www.doyoucovfefe.com/

Stupid, just stupid.  I now have very little respect for Rittenhouse and those attorneys.  Clouds must have been on to something I didn't see.

QuoteThe photo of Rittenhouse in the Black Rifle Coffee shirt was posted by attorney Lin Wood, who represents Rittenhouse and is assisting President Donald Trump in challenging the presidential election outcome in Georgia. Wood identified the two men standing with Rittenhouse as attorney John Pierce, at left, and actor Ricky Schroder.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/11/21/utah-coffee-company-faces/

Quote from: BayouCountry on November 22, 2020, 12:33:23 PM
Stupid, just stupid.  I now have very little respect for Rittenhouse and those attorneys.  Clouds must have been on to something I didn't see.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/11/21/utah-coffee-company-faces/

So how does this differ from my post above? And what is your issue with Rittenhouse?

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2020, 12:42:06 PM
So how does this differ from my post above? And what is your issue with Rittenhouse?

It shows lack of judgement.  Now I have to question Rittenhouse's other decisions.

Worse yet, what will the potential jurors think about the picture?