Yeah, because it wasn't short enough. Literally.
Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
The judge was a joke. This and a few other reasons from the onset of the trial.
That was the Wisconsin law, which the defense also agreed didn't apply when they conceded Rittenhouse didn't have a short barreled rifle (which was specifically what the law banned)
Haven't followed all that closely, but can someone explain why he wasn't found guilty of being underage and in possession of/cross state lines with an illegal firearm? Seemed like a layup all things considered.
Because of the provision in the law that allowed him to have a long gun as long as it wasn't "short barreled". That in effect made him having the gun legal and since the law didn't specify minors, the Judge threw out the charge.
Thanks. Seems like a useless distinction. If anything, a rifle with a longer barrel could be considered more dangerous, since it will generate more velocity and be more accurate.
I agree. The flaw is in the way the law was written in 1991. At the time, the intent was to address gang violence where short barreled shotguns were used. One would think WI politicians would try to rewrite the law at this point.
No way the R dominated legislature in WI will touch this law.
Never happening here. Our extreme gerrymandered state legislature is too busy currently trying to destroy nonpartisan local election boards so they can certify whatever results they want.
BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
Is there a secret challenge to post the dumbest shit possible in this thread?
It's probably more for the George Floyd thread or the culture wars thread.
Agreed
Is your Achilles heel an intelligent opinion?
You’ve gotta do better than that
Don't accept gifts from Greeks bearing bad political takes.
Edit: We should stop, Raoul is probably about to ban me for making bad jokes in this thread.
If you think it’s a bad “political take” then let’s go to a different thread to discuss.
As for BLM being Marxist, it’s very easy to verify
I think I know why the long barrels can't be banned - it's probably because they are considered "weapons of war", and thus protected by the 2nd ammendment. In other words, suitable to fight the rebellion against the government army possessing gunships tanks and fighter jets.
You really can't make this shite up.
You really can't make this shite up.
No, i said he would have fallen for their propaganda. I was not comparing him to them.
But on the other hand, how is comparing someone to Nazis connected to white supremacy? Isn't the left wing especially calling most right wingers exactly that?
Is it a full moon tonight?
Feels like there’s been one for a bit.
Afghanistan has done pretty well over the past 40 years with just “long rifles” against fighter jets and tanks, no?
They had a tad more than just hunting rifles.
What? US didn't lose any ground in a battle with the Taliban. In fact they got bombed out of their caves in less than a month and ceded all territory. Its incomparable to a possible "organized militia" rebellion in the US.
What about BLM is Marxist?
To quote Adolph Reed
The movement poses no threat to capital. On the contrary, it receives almost universal support from corporations.
And American militias don’t?
Literally no one said that. You basically invented an argument and then "won" it.
For starters, American militias don’t have Stinger missiles & technicals.
Just because it received support from corporations (that were threatened), doesn’t mean shit.
The 3 founders of BLM are self described “trained Marxists”
Cullors: “ We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement”
Or the willingness to actually live in caves and fight a legitimate guerrilla war for a decade. The militia types wet the bed because they were told to stay home for a few weeks.
Keep up.
I drew an equivalence. Very simple.
Argument was that Americans have long guns in order to some day fight the government, whom posters pointed out have fighter jets/tanks.
Thread is getting seriously lost in this ridiculous discussion, but...
How did the Afghans get the missiles? Militias elsewhere would never be able to obtain similar weaponry?
I’m not on the side of militias. I’m just pointing out the false argument that just because the government has jets/tanks means any rebellion has no chance is stupid
I don’t see a dedicated effort by a foreign country to arm our militias with state of the art offensive weaponry any time soon.
1) We gave them to them to fight the Soviet Union.
2) The Taliban purchased more from Russia in subsequent years.
In the context of an armed uprising having success in the United States, it is.
I imagine that Americans wouldn’t need a “foreign” country.
If a civil war broke out in America, there would be some support within the borders?
Agree to disagree
Thread focus has been lost. Let’s take the “militia/arms/BLM” discussion somewhere else
It was a non sequitur. The point he was originally making was only about why the law was the way that it was, which directly relates to why the charges were seemingly arbitrarily dropped. You brought up the Taliban for some reason, even though they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You invented an argument where one didn't exist.