2nd amendment and protection

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.

Correct: he doesn't have to rape her. And Rosenbaum didn't have to attack Rittenhouse. They choose to, and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle (both legal) doesn't absolve a rapist or Rosenbaum of responsibility for their choices, neither of which is justified.

See how it works? No, you probably don't.

Police wannabe Rittenhouse didn't have to bring a rifle that he knew he couldn't legally own in his own state to the protests in the first place for Rosenbaum to grab. Rittenhouse started the sequence of events that led to 2 deaths. See how that works? Obviously, you don't. He had no business being there with a gun. Period.

"... and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle..."

Correction: the dress a woman wore had NO impact on whether the rapist was going to rape her or not. The dress was not the reason she was raped.

Rittenhouse bringing the rifle in the first place most certainly was the reason two people died that night. Or do you think Rosenbaum would have threatened Rittenhouse if he didn't have this walking around like some badass:




Rittenhouse was definitely defending himself by the time he shot those men, but your refusal to admit that Rittenhouse was responsible for being in that position in the first place is noted. Whatever happened to the alleged conservative principle of "personal responsibility"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Police wannabe Rittenhouse didn't have to bring a rifle

She didn't have to wear a short dress.

You keep making excuses for why Rossenbaum attacked Rittenhouse, but the fact is that Rossenbaum's attack wasn't justified, and Rittenhouse's self defense was.

Rittenhouse started the sequence of events that led to 2 deaths.

And she started the sequence of events that led to her rape.

Except that's not the basis on which any decent person assigns blame.

He had no business being there with a gun. Period.

He was legally entitled to be there with a gun. Period.

Correction: the dress a woman wore had NO impact on whether the rapist was going to rape her or not.

Are you suggesting that if it were, her rape would be justified? That's monstrous.

Rittenhouse bringing the rifle in the first place most certainly was the reason two people died that night. Or do you think Rosenbaum would have threatened Rittenhouse if he didn't have this walking around like some badass:

Rosenbaum was a violent lunatic. So... yeah, quite possibly. He was a convicted sexual abuser of children, so attacking an unarmed minor wouldn't have been beneath him. Obviously we can never know for sure, but your certainty that he wouldn't isn't remotely justified.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thank god brandishing a weapon isn't illegal or a crime/ threat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thank god brandishing a weapon isn't illegal or a crime/ threat.

Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.

Unless of course he was black then everyone knows the second amendment doesn't apply at all.

 

[Norman Alexander]

“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” - Homer Simpson, and evidently Norman Alexander too

OK, Homer. Where's your facts that Rittenhouse really needed to be there at all, and that he needed to be there with a gun that he contrived to be in possession of by tweaking interstate gun-control laws. Even before the poor little innocent lamb had a deadly duffel bag (or whatever) thrown towards him.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.

Dude, there's a photo of him in this very thread doing exactly that on the day in question. Just a few posts ago. Or is this trolling??

 

[Ziggurat]

Dude, there's a photo of him in this very thread doing exactly that on the day in question. Just a few posts ago. Or is this trolling??

https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-brandishing-a-weapon-or-pulling-a-gun-on-someone.html

Brief Synopsis: Brandishing a weapon is when someone shows another person a weapon, i.e. a gun or a knife, in an angry or theatening manner with the intent that the other person experience fear or anxiety.​

That's a photo of him carrying a weapon, not brandishing it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-brandishing-a-weapon-or-pulling-a-gun-on-someone.html

Brief Synopsis: Brandishing a weapon is when someone shows another person a weapon, i.e. a gun or a knife, in an angry or theatening manner with the intent that the other person experience fear or anxiety.​

That's a photo of him carrying a weapon, not brandishing it.

Wow. This thread just went looney.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, Homer. Where's your facts that Rittenhouse really needed to be there at all

I never claimed that he needed to be there. Nothing I said depends on him needing to be there.

I said he had a right to be there. Nobody, including you, has actually contested that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow. This thread just went looney.

If Rittenhouse was guilty of brandishing, do you think prosecutors would really have just let that slide? That doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't match their pattern of behavior. So why didn't they go after him for brandishing?

Maybe because he didn't.

 

[Thermal]

Kyle. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Stacyhs]

I give up. There's no use in continuing to explain to Zig how and why his analogy is wrong when he either doesn't want to see it or is just incapable of grasping it. Not one person has agreed with Ziggurat's analogy but five...six including me... do disagree with it. When you hit a brick wall, it's just time to stop banging your head against it cuz the only thing you're going to get is a headache and the brick wall isn't going to change.

 

[Ziggurat]

I give up. There's no use in continuing to explain to Zig how and why his analogy is wrong when he either doesn't want to see it or is just incapable of grasping it. Not one person has agreed with Ziggurat's analogy but five...six including me... do disagree with it. When you hit a brick wall, it's just time to stop banging your head against it cuz the only thing you're going to get is a headache and the brick wall isn't going to change.

You want to blame someone who acted legally because other people committed crimes against them. The analogy works perfectly, not because Kyle is like a rape victim, but because you are like a rape victim blamer.

 

[Stacyhs]

You want to blame someone who acted legally because other people committed crimes against them. The analogy works perfectly, not because Kyle is like a rape victim, but because you are like a rape victim blamer.