Things you won't read on Fox News

I find the pro gun bent on this thread bizarre. I live in Florida. Most of my neighbors are gun owners and I'm more petrified of them than of any "black lives matter thug" or whoever the bogeyman du jour is. The neighbor across the street from me is very proud of his gun collection with includes 2 AK47s and numerous AR15s. He's also a raging drunk who's still drunk at 9 am every morning. I tell my kids not to interact with him.

About 35 years ago I surprised a burglar in my house. Being younger and dumber I tried to collar him and got smacked back almost as hard as I smacked him. Thank god this was before the NRA armed all the criminals.

Select to expand quote

philn said..
I find the pro gun bent on this thread bizarre. I live in Florida. Most of my neighbors are gun owners and I'm more petrified of them than of any "black lives matter thug" or whoever the bogeyman du jour is.

Conservatives are the same the world over.

And yet the only people who died during the protest were killed by Rittenhouse.

"Simply put, the right-wing valorization of Rittenhouse as a hero is nonsense; even under the most sympathetic take that seems consistent with the facts, he was a well-meaning but deeply misguided child whose immature actions led to the loss of two lives, the severe injury of Gaige Grosskreutz, and an enormous amount of suffering for himself and his family."

Written by James Steiner-Dillon
Associate Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..
"Simply put, the right-wing valorization of Rittenhouse as a hero is nonsense; even under the most sympathetic take that seems consistent with the facts, he was a well-meaning but deeply misguided child whose immature actions led to the loss of two lives, the severe injury of Gaige Grosskreutz, and an enormous amount of suffering for himself and his family."

Written by James Steiner-Dillon
Associate Professor of Law, University of Dayton School of Law

I would not classify him as a hero either. He was way out of his depth and people lost thier lives when a more mature and experienced individual may have been able to descalate it. That does not make him guilty of anything though.

In the end it was not Rittenhouse who was responsible for the deaths and the court agreed. The inescapable facts are that he was attacked by 3 men and he defended himself with his weapon. The men who attacked a person armed with a rifle are the ones who are responsible for thier own fates. As noted, one was armed himself. The one using a skateboard wins a Darwin award.

You still have not explained your view that Rittenhouse used a disproportionate response and belongs in jail. Even your quoted statement merely claims he was a well meaning but misguided child and should not be viewed as a hero. That is a far cry from your statements.

Perhaps your view on the case was not aligned with the established facts? Either that or you simply don't care and are attacking his politics.

I'm not familiar with the case at all. So this sounds nuts to me. Surely I've got the wrong perspective.

Why was a child armed with rifle in public??

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
I'm not familiar with the case at all. So this sounds nuts to me. Surely I've got the wrong perspective.

Why was a child armed with rifle in public??

Because it's the USA. But as Paradox said, you're not doing yourself any favours if you start swinging a lump of wood or draw a pistol and point it at a person holding a rifle. Gun culture sucks for everyone.

Select to expand quote

hardpole said..

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42.[6][7] While immediately after World War II, NATO countries were equipped with battle rifles, the development of the M16 rifle during the Vietnam War prompted the adoption of assault rifles by the rest of NATO. By the end of the 20th century, assault rifles had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles. The two most successful modern assault rifles are the AK-47 and the M16 designs and their derivatives.

--

I recently read a book called (from Memory) "The Gun" - very interesting about the evolution of this style of weapon and the AK47. Pre WW2 the American military wanted a high powered long range weapon but eventually realised that most combat was close range and almost hand to hand. The low power "pistol" ammunition in an automatic short weapon was much more effective. AK47 is the most common and some of its success was due to its easy manufacture and simple design.

So very much a military design, no reason you would ever need it for anything except fighting other people, certainly not hunting.

Assault style rifles a great for hunting, especially when you want to quickly kill a large number of animals that gathered together. Like at a church, school or food court.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

I'm not familiar with the case at all. So this sounds nuts to me. Surely I've got the wrong perspective.

Why was a child armed with rifle in public??

It was during the violent BLM rally's when many previous rallies had resulted in a significant amount of damage and looting to private property and businesses, plus death and injuries to the public. There was also significant anti police sentiment by the protesters / rioters.

Many private citizens attended this and other rallies with legally owned firarms to support the police and to protect private property. Rittenhouse was one of a number who were guarding a car dealership. He had a first aid kit and was studying nursing. He had interacted with police that day who were aware of Rittenhouse and the other armed civilians.

Basically there was a dude there who had just been released from hospital for attempted suicide. He had made statements that night for other people with guns to shoot him. He harrased, chased and eventually attacked Rittenhouse, who shot and killed him. Rittenhouse then made a beeline back to the police lines but was chased by a mob. He tripped and fell, the mob attacked him on the ground, with one grabbing the barrel of his gun. The gun was fired multiple times while and two people who were attacking Rittenhouse were shot.

At a trail, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges.

The whole situation was messed up for sure, but you can't just look at Rittenhouse in isolation, everyone involved had a part to play.

Rittenhouse shot a child molester

He is a hero

He should be everyone's hero

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
So, just another situation where people thought the addition of firearms would result in better outcomes for them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, but I doubt you have considered why at least half the US population believe possession of firearms are essential. You cannot just dismiss the views of that number of people. Nor can you just decide to take their fairearms away. It is a great example of why emotional or idiological motivation for changing constitutions is potentially so dangerous.

In the case of Rittenhouse, I agree he should not have been there. It was no place for a 17yo kid and there were no winners. He was not a lone vigilante, there were hundreds of armed citizens there with the same intent of protecting property and people against rioters. Those who condemn the fact these people were there, seem to overlook the reality of the causality of the BLM riots and looting that was sweeping the country. Why was that acceptable? Why did it end up that none of these people who were caught looting, burning down buildings and other extensive damage to private property were ever prosecuted by the authorities? They were essentially given free reign to do as they wished with no consequences.

If the government is not going stop these activities or even prosecute the criminals caught, how can you blame citizens for taking the view that they need to protect themselves and thier property, not only from the rioters, but the government itself? Contrast the lack of action of those riots and the damage they did to people, property and thier lives with the narrative and prosecutions around a group of unarmed protesters that entered a public building on Jan 6. It was wrong, but little damage or injury was done except an unarmed female who was shot dead by police entering the building.

So you add in a government and justice system that is actively targeting, censoring and repressing one side of politics clearly in favor of the other and you get a large proportion of the population that believe they need to arm themselves against a hostile government.

The only way to reduce the incidence of firearms in the US is for the Gov to act in a manner that convinces the people that they don't need them.

Trying to take the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms away from people while at the same time actively waging war against thier freedoms and values is not going to work.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
"Prosecutors have charged 60-plus people in Kenosha protests
28 Dec 2021 - Prosecutors have now charged more than 60 people in connection with offenses committed during protests."

OK, so in Kenosha we have 50 buildings destroyed, 100 or more damaged, $50 to a $100 million in damages to property. Looting, cars destroyed, mulitple deaths. 50 or so arrested (not many actually convicted possibly less than 10). The worst was one guy gets 5 years for deliberately hitting an officer in the head with a brick knocking him out. Maybe that is all appropriate, but it sounds low. It was worse elsewhere and most of the 1000's of arrests were dropped because they were people who violated laws but were generally peacefully protesting.

On Jan 6 there was illegal entry to a public building. No real damage (doors were opened) and few to no injuries inflicted by the protesters on police. Last I saw over 1000 had been charged and at least 500 protesters had been convicted many serving 8 months to 2 years in Jail for simply entering the capitol building and doing nothing else. One guy got 14 years jail for throwing a chair and I am not sure he even hit anyone, definately didn't cause injury.

You can't tell me it is proportionate response. This is why people are arming themselves.

Select to expand quote

philn said..
What about the whole "overthrow the government" intention of January 6th? The riots in Kenosha only affected people in the area. Overthrowing the government would have affected 330 million people.

You might need to elaborate on that. Who claimed or stated they were going to overthrow the government and exactly how were a group of protesters going to "overthrow the government" by entering the capital building?

You are repeating nonsense fed to you by media. No one can overthrow a government without control of the military who use force to quell all resistance. You don't do it using an unarmed rabble entering a building and temporarily disrupting a parlimentary process.

Take that thought of how to actually overthrow a government a bit further and you might get an inkling of why US people are arming themselves and so resistant to give up thier weapons. The US constitutional amendment was made to allow the people to arm themsleves to help prevent such a thing from happening.

Rightly or wrongly some of the protesters outside were obviously agitated and upset, just like the BLM rioters were. But there has been no established intent by anyone to overthrow the government let alone how that could have been achieved. That is a political and media narrative unsupported by factual evidence. New footage has shown that they turned from agitated protesters into trespassers when a police officer threw a tear gas canister that landed into his own police lines. They basically had to abandon the line and the crowd simply followed into the building. There were scuffles, but nothing serious. Mostly they were simply allowed to enter and then eventually leave.

In fact the video footage that the republican controlled house has now forced to be released shows that once they entered the building, instead of looting, burning and destroying things like the BLM rioters, they were largely orderly, respectful and non voilent. They took selfies, were escorted around the premisis by guards and even held prayer meetings. In many cases they took instruction from security guards and lined up in many places to wait thier turn in seeing various rooms. I think the worst crimes committed inside the building were theft as some took souvineers.

Hardly the actions of an organised or even unorganised attempt to overthrow the government.

The story told from some perspectives is very different to the actual facts.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

philn said..
What about the whole "overthrow the government" intention of January 6th? The riots in Kenosha only affected people in the area. Overthrowing the government would have affected 330 million people.

You might need to elaborate on that. Who claimed or stated they were going to overthrow the government and exactly how were a group of protesters going to "overthrow the government" by entering the capital building?

You are repeating nonsense fed to you by media. No one can overthrow a government without control of the military who use force to quell all resistance. You don't do it using an unarmed rabble entering a building and temporarily disrupting a parlimentary process.

Take that thought of how to actually overthrow a government a bit further and you might get an inkling of why US people are arming themselves and so resistant to give up thier weapons. The US constitutional amendment was made to allow the people to arm themsleves to help prevent such a thing from happening.

Rightly or wrongly some of the protesters outside were obviously agitated and upset, just like the BLM rioters were. But there has been no established intent by anyone to overthrow the government let alone how that could have been achieved. That is a political and media narrative unsupported by factual evidence. New footage has shown that they turned from agitated protesters into trespassers when a police officer threw a tear gas canister that landed into his own police lines. They basically had to abandon the line and the crowd simply followed into the building. There were scuffles, but nothing serious. Mostly they were simply allowed to enter and then eventually leave.

In fact the video footage that the republican controlled house has now forced to be released shows that once they entered the building, instead of looting, burning and destroying things like the BLM rioters, they were largely orderly, respectful and non voilent. They took selfies, were escorted around the premisis by guards and even held prayer meetings. In many cases they took instruction from security guards and lined up in many places to wait thier turn in seeing various rooms. I think the worst crimes committed inside the building were theft as some took souvineers.

Hardly the actions of an organised or even unorganised attempt to overthrow the government.

The story told from some perspectives is very different to the actual facts.

The plot to overthrow the government didn't rely on the military or rioters, but on republicans with
their "big lie' narrative and forged "electors" etc as exposed in the Jan 6th committee.

The silly view of "peaceful protestors" doesn't even deserve commenting on.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

The plot to overthrow the government didn't rely on the military or rioters, but on republicans with
their "big lie' narrative and forged "electors" etc as exposed in the Jan 6th committee.

The silly view of "peaceful protestors" doesn't even deserve commenting on.

So the net outcome of the whole Jan 6th hearing circus was that politicians make questionable claims to bolster support for thier causes and this is by extention, a plot to overthrow the government.

So by definition the outcome of the Jan 6th hearings is also a plot to overthrow the government.

Have you actually applied critical thinking to what you read in the media??

As for the peaceful protesters comment..... again, do you apply your filter selectively?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

philn said..
What about the whole "overthrow the government" intention of January 6th? The riots in Kenosha only affected people in the area. Overthrowing the government would have affected 330 million people.

You might need to elaborate on that. Who claimed or stated they were going to overthrow the government and exactly how were a group of protesters going to "overthrow the government" by entering the capital building?

You are repeating nonsense fed to you by media. No one can overthrow a government without control of the military who use force to quell all resistance. You don't do it using an unarmed rabble entering a building and temporarily disrupting a parlimentary process.

Take that thought of how to actually overthrow a government a bit further and you might get an inkling of why US people are arming themselves and so resistant to give up thier weapons. The US constitutional amendment was made to allow the people to arm themsleves to help prevent such a thing from happening.

Rightly or wrongly some of the protesters outside were obviously agitated and upset, just like the BLM rioters were. But there has been no established intent by anyone to overthrow the government let alone how that could have been achieved. That is a political and media narrative unsupported by factual evidence. New footage has shown that they turned from agitated protesters into trespassers when a police officer threw a tear gas canister that landed into his own police lines. They basically had to abandon the line and the crowd simply followed into the building. There were scuffles, but nothing serious. Mostly they were simply allowed to enter and then eventually leave.

In fact the video footage that the republican controlled house has now forced to be released shows that once they entered the building, instead of looting, burning and destroying things like the BLM rioters, they were largely orderly, respectful and non voilent. They took selfies, were escorted around the premisis by guards and even held prayer meetings. In many cases they took instruction from security guards and lined up in many places to wait thier turn in seeing various rooms. I think the worst crimes committed inside the building were theft as some took souvineers.

Hardly the actions of an organised or even unorganised attempt to overthrow the government.

The story told from some perspectives is very different to the actual facts.

Orderly transfer of power...