Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Blakey, pooty, DT, robbie, and RR really need to change their diapers lol.Or rather, get their mommies to do it for them. 😂 🤣 😆
Funny I dont remember crying about this verdict. Given I wasnt following it and not versed at all on the laws of the state.
That said it sure is worrying a guy can get away with that. Glad I live in the U.K. 👆
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Funny I dont remember crying about this verdict. Given I wasnt following it and not versed at all on the laws of the state.That said it sure is worrying a guy can get away with that. Glad I live in the U.K. 👆
You can get beaten down and/or murdered by a group of middle aged men in Europe too. 😛
I'll just repeat what I said in Comic Book Vs:
Are we assuming if Rittenhouse did not have an AR 15, that no confrontation would have happened? Everybody goes their separate ways?
Because I think something is being ignored here. Namely, the fact that one 17 year old kid would have no chance against 30-something year old men.
And while Robtard pointed out what may have happened is speculation, it is NOT speculation that an average person is no match for a group.
This is one of the main reasons for gun advocacy to begin with. It acknowledges that guns are dangerous weapons that should never be misused, while also a good thing to have in situations where a person would have no chance, if he wasn't armed.
Even Ron Goldman can potentially survive a confrontation with OJ Simpson if he has a gun. And we know how that turned out when all he had was his bare hands.
Bunch of racist bastards.
I was rewatching part of the Rittenhouse prosecution, Kyle deserves all the praise in the world for how he handled himself against that hack. He didn't even know the laws of the states he was grilling him on, and it was his questions! This isn't some guy on the internet, he chose to ask Kyle why he carried an AR-15 instead of a pistol, claiming wrongly that he could not legally carry a long barrel rifle at 17.
Then there's foolish statements implying a 17 year old had no business being there but adults did.
Because protests are age restricted, said no one ever.
Originally posted by cdtm
You can get beaten down and/or murdered by a group of middle aged men in Europe too. 😛I'll just repeat what I said in Comic Book Vs:
Are we assuming if Rittenhouse did not have an AR 15, that no confrontation would have happened? Everybody goes their separate ways?
Because I think something is being ignored here. Namely, the fact that one 17 year old kid would have no chance against 30-something year old men.
And while Robtard pointed out what may have happened is speculation, it is NOT speculation that an average person is no match for a group.
This is one of the main reasons for gun advocacy to begin with. It acknowledges that guns are dangerous weapons that should never be misused, while also a good thing to have in situations where a person would have no chance, if he wasn't armed.
Even Ron Goldman can potentially survive a confrontation with OJ Simpson if he has a gun. And we know how that turned out when all he had was his bare hands.
In U.K. if I showed up to a Tommy Robinson Islamaphobic protest with a Knife, and stabbed 3 of the protestors in self defence, who all end up bleeding to death, you can be damn well sure im not getting off Scot free
Because For starters it would be illegal for me to carry a knife, and for second, no one in their right mind would believe I wasnt there to start trouble.
So yeah Im thankful to be in the U.K. Obviously im not invincible here and can still be killed. But I see literally no benefit to carrying firearms. The only by product of that I see is DEATH.
I guess I wouldnt mind having a gun in my house to protect against intruders, but only if I was the only one. But if it meant intruders were also much more likely to carry a gun, or that we get gun violence and killing all over the place, then SCREW THAT.