• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Seditious Republicans march toward authoritarianism

 
So that means they'd be justified to shoot him in self-defense, right?
 
So shoot at the 2nd Amendment armed militias showing up everywhere? ok, got it. Im headed out to get a gun
 
PhDeac said:
So that means they'd be justified to shoot him in self-defense, right?
Click to expand...

Certainly makes the "I reasonably feared for my life" argument easier to put forth if you see him out on the street while you're a protestor. Of course since he's white this makes it far less likely to work.
 
WakeandBake said:
So shoot at the 2nd Amendment armed militias showing up everywhere? ok, got it. Im headed out to get a gun
Click to expand...

You live in Chicago, right?

Better pack a lunch as I was assured by posters on the Tunnels that the guns used in the large number of shootings and murders in Chicago come from other states so you won't be able to find one in Illinois.

Sorry
 
You're so fucking weird -- do you think you're being clever, or funny, or making some sort of point? It's just pure nonsense -- there's a problem with your brain.
 
An interesting discussion a friend had the other day with regards to Rittenhouse: What would have happened if someone who saw Rittenhouse shoot someone, or even pointing a gun at another person, had decided to shoot him in that moment. Another person sees the same thing with the 2nd shooter, and shoots him. So on and so on. I'm certainly not one for slippery slopes, as I think they are often fantastical, but from a legal standpoint, I don't see how you could say any shooting after the initial one wasn't in self defense.

Rittenhouse is insanely lucky that these are mostly peaceful and nobody else in the crowd was armed, or he would be dead.

So the real question for the right is: do you really want Rittenhouse to be found not guilty? Do you want the people who are already protesting a lack of justice to feel, even more so, that they are not protected by the law? Thus, they need to take the law into their own hands?
 
Last edited:
That's why many of us think much of the logic of carrying a gun is silly in the first place.

The other question is if you see someone who isn't military and isn't police carrying a gun, at what point can you legally defend yourself from him? Do you have to wait until he's aiming at you? I think the guy who got injured said he hesitated to defend himself when he saw Rittenhouse was a kid and that's why he got shot. Does the same logic apply when you see that guy in your street, in a grocery store, and in a school?

There's no real logic to any of this which is why it's very possible the high profile white guy with a gun wins.
 
agreed, very slippery slope. if he gets off, i bet you see more protesters with guns. once any of them shoot it is the O.K. Corral and everyone that "returns fire" is doing so for protection. where that changes is when the party (rw or lw) shoots first cannot use that defense (unless they also shoot at the first shooter)...and therefore the aggressor and in the wrong, especially if they return fire at the people defending themselves.

is that correct? guns on everyone in 2020 is absurd and illogical, maybe on a farm or something, but taking your gun to the grocery store is asinine.


in all honesty, Americans are too dumb to be allowed to carry guns. example, just yesterday a few people were shot during road rage. ROAD RAGE! which in itself is asinine...let the person over, it will not slow you down but maybe 1-2 seconds from your trip.
 
Colonel Angus said:
You live in Chicago, right?

Better pack a lunch as I was assured by posters on the Tunnels that the guns used in the large number of shootings and murders in Chicago come from other states so you won't be able to find one in Illinois.

Sorry
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You stand in the shoes of the shootee for purposes of the law. Of corse there is a reasonable man standard applied to what you are seeing as said shootee.
 
 
Looks like Trump is restarting the Un-American Activities Committee.

[h=1]White House directs federal agencies to cancel race-related training sessions it calls ‘un-American propaganda’[/h]
[h=2]Administration seeks list of contracts for those that refer to ‘white privilege,’ according to memo[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/04/white-house-racial-sensitivity-training/
 
Demonwolverine said:
An interesting discussion a friend had the other day with regards to Rittenhouse: What would have happened if someone who saw Rittenhouse shoot someone, or even pointing a gun at another person, had decided to shoot him in that moment. Another person sees the same thing with the 2nd shooter, and shoots him. So on and so on. I'm certainly not one for slippery slopes, as I think they are often fantastical, but from a legal standpoint, I don't see how you could say any shooting after the initial one wasn't in self defense.

Rittenhouse is insanely lucky that these are mostly peaceful and nobody else in the crowd was armed, or he would be dead.

So the real question for the right is: do you really want Rittenhouse to be found not guilty? Do you want the people who are already protesting a lack of justice to feel, even more so, that they are not protected by the law? Thus, they need to take the law into their own hands?
Click to expand...

You do know that one of the "peaceful" guys chasing Rittenhouse was armed with a pistol at the moment he was shot. Not defending the kid as I don't think he should have been there in the first place armed with an AR-15.
 
Wakefan77 said:
You do know that one of the "peaceful" guys chasing Rittenhouse was armed with a pistol at the moment he was shot. Not defending the kid as I don't think he should have been there in the first place armed with an AR-15.
Click to expand...

So he was defending himself from the guy with an AR-15 dressed in military cosplay.

Isn’t that what people claim 2A is for?
 
Wakefan77 said:
You do know that one of the "peaceful" guys chasing Rittenhouse was armed with a pistol at the moment he was shot. Not defending the kid as I don't think he should have been there in the first place armed with an AR-15.
Click to expand...

If he wasn’t using the pistol, he was being a peaceful responsible gun owner. What’s your complaint?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top