Official Trump Thread - Winners only

[Lasherž]

So we just have to accept riots, looting, violence and murder. Because we just have to accept these people trying to bully their opinions onto the rest of us with their threats (and actions) of civil unrest until their political demands are met? That is not how this country works. Or, it's not how it is suppose to work.

It's funny. In Charlottesville the left refused to believe there were any peaceful protesters in the crowd, so they could twist Trump's statement to mean he was referring to neo nazi's. But now that the tables are turned, we are suppose to not talk about the weekly fires, explosions, shootings, looting, etc... because that's just as minority of the over all group. Even if I agree to that logic, at what point do we shut down the good intended several-month-long protests in order to protect our citizens from the radicals that are using those well intended people as cover? It's easy to say we just have to accept these things, until it's your home or business they are burning down.

And we will just have to agree to disagree on the left-biased media helping the BLM movement. My list of examples would be exhaustingly long, and I suspect would fall on deaf ears (no offense).

I didn't say to accept their criminality, I said accept that they're going to be part of any protest. Their presence isn't a discount of the ability to protest. The police should try to single them out and arrest them, but obviously that's hard and probably part of the reason some of them are even there. Think of what a precedence your opinion on the matter sets, if you're all protesting the government taking away all your guns lets say and I show up and from the crowd shine a laser in the cops' eyes, throw a bottle, or start pushing people around me and blaming it on others until there's a fight in the center, does that mean everyone needs to shut up and go home and their message is just null and void now? The police seem to think so when it's a leftist cause.

There were peaceful protesters at Charlottesville, they were just neonazis who, while peaceful, were evil or stupid people all the same. Their entire cause was the dismissal of and hatred towards other nationalities and ethnicities. Calling that a peaceful view is like saying some ISIS are peaceful because they haven't acted on their views yet. I mean what do you think the point of the protests are in each case? You seem to think they're equal. When a BLM person kills an innocent white person it's hypocritical to their message, when a KKK member kills an innocent black person it's perfectly in line with their message (and history). That's a hell of a pill to swallow I guess. That's not to say that I think it was a riot from the start in Charlottesville, but white superiority is a pretty stupid starting point if you want peace in this world. I would personally love to see all of the criminals arrested because the BLM protest means something and obviously a lot of folks are stuck at a point of not being able to stomach the bad with the good. What's frustrating about that is that the bad isn't part of the good, it follows from it. Unless the movement could know the intentions of everyone in attendance there's no hope for their protests remaining protests? I just think it's unrealistic to require that for the constitution to apply. Maybe there should be a freedom of disassociation in addition to our freedom of association.

I don't think the media cares past their business interests. Equally valid is that they don't want to pay insurance rates for reporters to be able to interview people who are committing crimes. Wouldn't that be enlightening though, letting people tell their own stories. It sure beats Tucker Carlson filling in the blank for everyone with white nationalist rhetoric.

 

[honkyg^2]

Remember when bike lock soy boi was identified by 4chan in less than 24 hours?

Well, weaponized autism is once again hard at work as they have reviewed all the videos surrounding rittenhouse and have found that the bearded acquaintance that accompanied the manlet on video as he said "shoot me, ni**a", has been id'd on video pointing a gun at kyle right before the pedo was shot.

There is alot of information to read, but it's all there and it I'll be dam*ed if these guys are wrong.

https://archive.vn/AHbMc

https://archive.vn/6AufI

https://archive.vn/UOt3J

https://archive.vn/xgtFL

https://archive.vn/FBLLj

https://archive.vn/gYZlH

https://archive.vn/0Qkm7

Archived threads related to digging info.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I can tell you right now that in this state that "friend" who gave him the AR is also going to be charged sooner or later as an accessory and rightfully so. He knowingly broke a law.

I'd say you are probably correct.

 

[honkyg^2]

I'd say you are probably correct.

try this on for size (see attachment)

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I didn't say to accept their criminality, I said accept that they're going to be part of any protest. Their presence isn't a discount of the ability to protest. The police should try to single them out and arrest them, but obviously that's hard and probably part of the reason some of them are even there.

Rioting and looting are not a forgone conclusion at every protest. You are trying to normalize the behavior these leftist protesters and rioters are displaying.

And I assure you the police are trying to single out the criminals from the crowd. We've seen where that leads... to claims of rubber bullets hitting the wrong person, or non lethal pepper spray being called a "war crime". Which sparks more outrage and yet another excuse to continue the "protests".

Think of what a precedence your opinion on the matter sets

The precedent would be that if the police cannot guarantee public safety due to the criminals hiding in the ranks of the protesters, then the protests need to be disbanded. You would probably blame the police for that, I would blame the criminals using the protests as shields, and a bit of blame on the 'innocent' protesters who many of which knew exactly what and who they were shielding.

You are trying to make this a 1st amendment discussion. Again that's an easy fall-back position to take until the angry mob is burning down YOUR house. These protesters have been protesting for months now. They got their message across long ago. Dispersing them now for the safety of the communities is not oppression. Expecting us to bend to their will, or allow them to continue rioting, is oppression.

There were peaceful protesters at Charlottesville, they were just neonazis who, while peaceful, were evil or stupid people all the same.

You just made my point for me.There were many people there on both sides of the political aisle, not affiliated with antifa or neo nazi's, that were there to protest for or against tearing down confederate statues. But you have swallowed the narrative the liberally biased media told you. All conservative people at the Charlottesville protest were neo nazi's, but the vast majority of current protesters are peaceful civic minded loving individuals so we shouldn't focus on the people who are rioting, looting, murdering, and setting neighborhoods on fire. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the double standard being applied here along political lines.

I don't think the media cares past their business interests.

While I tend to be a skeptic like you, I think you are selling your skepticism a bit short. There is one thing that gets ratings better than chaos (well, 2 things but im leaving *** out of it lol)... and that's telling people what they want to hear. There is a reason CNN referred to the situation as a "fiery but mostly peaceful protest", and it's certainly not to hype up the violent aspect of the protest.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

try this on for size (see attachment)

Yes, while Wisconsin has an open carry law, it is against the law for anyone under 18 to brandish one in public, if I understand the laws there correctly. That isn't exactly relevant to murder charges though. No matter what, he isn't walking away from this with clean hands.

 

[honkyg^2]

Yes, while Wisconsin has an open carry law, it is against the law for anyone under 18 to brandish one in public, if I understand the laws there correctly. That isn't exactly relevant to murder charges though. No matter what, he isn't walking away from this with clean hands.

Possession of a dangerous weapon by anyone under 18 is a class A misdemeanor. Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

WI statute 948.60[37]

Defenses to prosecution under this statute:

• Target practice under the supervision of an adult
• Members of armed forces or police under 18 in the line of duty
• Hunting (either with an adult or having passed hunter's safety)
• The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.[38][39]

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So it was a hate cops thing... for some reason it's a hate Whites thing too huh? I hope these racist don't think they can actually win if it really goes down. Poor dumb bastards.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Possession of a dangerous weapon by anyone under 18 is a class A misdemeanor. Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

WI statute 948.60[37]

Defenses to prosecution under this statute:

• Target practice under the supervision of an adult
• Members of armed forces or police under 18 in the line of duty
• Hunting (either with an adult or having passed hunter's safety)
• The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.[38][39]

You keep linking to me as if Im disputing WI law claims here, which Im not.

But since we are on the topic, you can legally own an ar-15 in Wisconsin if you purchase an "80%" and build it yourself. That is true of every state, as far as I know. That is not relevant in this case, but I thought Id point it out given the WI law you quoted.

 

[honkyg^2]

You keep linking to me as if Im disputing WI law claims here, which Im not.

But since we are on the topic, you can legally own an ar-15 in Wisconsin if you purchase an "80%" and build it yourself. That is true of every state, as far as I know. That is not relevant in this case, but I thought Id point it out given the WI law you quoted.

Well, you did say he's not walking away with clean hands.

My rebuttal implies that he will, and i know this because im in Illinois and hunt in Wisconsin,.... I know and understand these laws, just as the firm's that have taken Kyle's case pro-bono, which said high profile legal teams do not do unless it's a for-sure win.

I also went to school and grew up in the same neighborood with Kyle's father at Warren twshp h.s.

My step-sons are Kyle's childhood friends, and when there are people actively threatening the lives of Kyle's family and friends, well, this guy right here is gonna get a bit vigilant in finding And disseminating the g-d truth.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Well, you did say he's not walking away with clean hands.

My rebuttal implies that he will, and i know this because im in Illinois and hunt in Wisconsin,.... I know and understand these laws, just as the firm's that have taken Kyle's case pro-bono, which said high profile legal teams do not do unless it's a for-sure win.

I also went to school and grew up in the same neighborood with Kyle's father at Warren twshp h.s.

My step-sons are Kyle's childhood friends, and when there are people actively threatening the lives of Kyle's family and friends, well, this guy right here is gonna get a bit vigilant in finding And disseminating the g-d truth.

Im confused. You linked to a law that Rittenhouse clearly violated, and then state he will walk away with clean hands (no convictions). Those high profile law firms have taken his case on the grounds of murder charges, Im pretty sure they would be very happy to lower the charges to illegal possession of a firearm.

 

[honkyg^2]

Im confused. You linked to a law that Rittenhouse clearly violated, and then state he will walk away with clean hands (no convictions). Those high profile law firms have taken his case on the grounds of murder charges, Im pretty sure they would be very happy to lower the charges to illegal possession of a firearm.

That's just it, if you went to the actual document by googling the statute and reading the language used, then applying the prosecution defense bullet points i posted to refer to such language, in the subsections as to exemptions, it is clear cut. It is not illegal for a minor 16 years, or older to possess and carry a dangerous weapon provided it is a shotgun with a barrel 18 inches or longer, or a rifle with a barrel 16 inches or longer.


Are you deliberately ignoring this, or can you expand and articulate just what he violated now that you have the statute?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

That's just it, if you went to the actual document by googling the statute and reading the language used, then applying the prosecution defense bullet points i posted to refer to such language, in the subsections as to exemptions, it is clear cut. It is not illegal for a minor 16 years, or older to possess and carry a dangerous weapon provided it is a shotgun with a barrel 18 inches or longer, or a rifle with a barrel 16 inches or longer.


Are you deliberately ignoring this, or can you expand and articulate just what he violated now that you have the statute?

"Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had." - https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...osha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

If you want to argue if he will be found guilty of illegal possession, I'd be glad to. But the topic at hand is whether or not he was in defense of his life. Again Im pretty confident his lawyers would be glad to settle for illegal possession.

 

[honkyg^2]

[

"Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had." - https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...osha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

If you want to argue if he will be found guilty of illegal possession, I'd be glad to. But the topic at hand is whether or not he was in defense of his life. Again Im pretty confident his lawyers would be glad to settle for illegal possession.

He will not be found guilty based on the language contained within the statute.

Citing an editorial piece with opinions as ypur source of legal argument is lack-luster obfuscation at best.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

[

He will not be found guilty based on the language contained within the statute.

Citing an editorial piece with opinions as ypur source of legal argument is lack-luster obfuscation at best.

Your are very confrontational to someone who is sympathetic to your over all view of Rittenhouse's future. He faces 2 charges of murder and you want to argue with me over a possible illegal possession charge.