advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
"Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 22, 2021 07:58PM
It's not that every upset conservative is going to be willy-nilly gunning down liberal protesters, but there are a pretty good number of militant right-wingers out there that are feeling emboldened:

[www.vox.com]

Quote

Immediately after Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal on Friday, the fringe right’s online forums lit up with celebration — and among some, a belief that they too can kill without legal consequence. On Telegram, a secure messaging app popular with extremists, the leader of a neo-Nazi group wrote that the verdict gives “good Americans legal precedent and license to kill violent commies without worrying about doing life in prison if we defend ourselves in a riot.”

There is every reason to take such rhetoric seriously. “It has never taken more than a whisper of approval to fan the flames of militant right action. The Kenosha acquittal is a shout,” writes Kathleen Belew, a historian of white power movements at the University of Chicago. Based on how it’s been cheered in some quarters, the verdict is potentially setting the stage for future violence.



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 22, 2021 08:29PM
Its almost as though the right to open carry has some downsides.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 22, 2021 08:44PM
It isn't open carry that is the issue. It's who is doing it that can be.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 22, 2021 09:12PM
So now all we have to do is ensure they don’t want to commit violence. Should be easy. So easy, they may as well all have nukes, since the tools aren’t important.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 22, 2021 09:26PM
I'd be WAY more worried about bad drivers trying to kill me than someone with a firearm. Far more likely too.

Look up firearm deaths vs driving deaths. Alcohol kills more than firearms do here in the US and it isn't even regulated to any significant degree. Nor is it protected by the Constitution.

I'm all for firearms regulations, as long as they are fact based, not emotional based, and they are applied equally. Evil Black Rifles don't actually get used that often to commit crimes according to the data published by the FBI.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: November 22, 2021 09:44PM
cars are not designed to kill people
perhaps that's the difference
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 22, 2021 09:49PM
Quote
Steve G.
cars are not designed to kill people
perhaps that's the difference

Perhaps, but more people die from alcohol or vehicles than from firearms. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners use them safely. Looking at auto and alcohol fatalities, the same can't be said for them.

And alcohol is more deadly than opioids too.

And once again, I'm disgusted at the trial outcome.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2021 09:51PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Wags
Date: November 23, 2021 12:47AM
The Daily did an interesting take on the acquittal this morning

[www.nytimes.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2021 12:48AM by Wags.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: RgrF
Date: November 23, 2021 01:50AM
Quote
Racer X
It isn't open carry that is the issue. It's who is doing it that can be.

Without open carry, who wouldn't matter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 04:45AM
carrying an exposed pistol in an outside the waistband holster vs carrying a concealed pistol in an inside the waistband holster with a loose over shirt or coat, or a shoulder holster rig under a jacket makes what difference?

I don't think you fully understand the terminology and legalities in the differences.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 23, 2021 07:11AM
Quote
Racer X
carrying an exposed pistol in an outside the waistband holster vs carrying a concealed pistol in an inside the waistband holster with a loose over shirt or coat, or a shoulder holster rig under a jacket makes what difference?

I don't think you fully understand the terminology and legalities in the differences.



It matters whether you're waiving the gun around like a lunatic.

...the whole line or reasoning supporting gun ownership is backwards. We certainly seem unable to draw any sensible rules around it.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2021 07:14AM by mattkime.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 23, 2021 08:30AM
Quote
Racer X
I'd be WAY more worried about bad drivers trying to kill me than someone with a firearm. Far more likely too.

Look up firearm deaths vs driving deaths. Alcohol kills more than firearms do here in the US and it isn't even regulated to any significant degree. Nor is it protected by the Constitution.

Oh come on, Racer. These feel like straw man arguments. The majority of American adults drive cars; the majority of people drink alcohol (preferably at times when they’re not doing the former). Like it or not, both of these have important societal benefits.

Only a minority of American adults own guns. Only a minority of those are hunters. Most cite “personal protection” for themselves and their families as the reason they own guns, while ignoring the statistical certainty that bringing a gun into the home increases the risk of gun death in that home.

Beyond that, drinking alcohol (and to a degree that one dies from it) is a personal choice. No one else can kill me with alcohol. Only me. That’s not true of guns.

(Also, FWIW, I would say the 18th and 21st amendments, taken together, constitutionally allow states to allow alcohol production and consumption if they wish.)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: November 23, 2021 09:04AM
Quote
mattkime
Its almost as though the right to open carry has some downsides.

You just have to make sure you shoot first.

Then say that you "feared for your life."

But make sure you get a kill shot. Don't want any return fire.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: November 23, 2021 09:23AM
Quote
Racer X
I'd be WAY more worried about bad drivers trying to kill me than someone with a firearm.

You have people TRYING to kill you with a car???

Come on, even you have to acknowledge how ridiculous that analogy is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Acer
Date: November 23, 2021 09:30AM
I propose we ban analogies from gun arguments. We only end up debating the validity of the analogy, not the issue it was supposed to illuminate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: kj
Date: November 23, 2021 09:44AM
I object to the use of "upset conservative" as a synonym for "leader of a neo-nazi group". :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: kj
Date: November 23, 2021 09:51AM
Quote
Acer
I propose we ban analogies from gun arguments. We only end up debating the validity of the analogy, not the issue it was supposed to illuminate.

I would propose that it doesn't matter whether something is made to kill you or not: dead is dead. If we choose to continue using something when it has literally always killed people every day/month/year, then we are accepting those deaths as a reasonable cost, considering the benefits.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: November 23, 2021 10:07AM
It's not that every upset conservative is going to be willy-nilly gunning down liberal protesters, but there are a pretty good number of militant right-wingers out there that are feeling emboldened:


Yes, this is a real consideration, those who feel this expands their 'rights' to shoot first or at all.

Years ago a TX man shot and killed a Japanese exchange student who was accidentally dropped off at the wrong address to attend a Halloween party.

Though he was a good distance away down a driveway, the homeowner told his wife to 'get the gun', a .44Mag scoped revolver, if I recall correctly.

He shot the kid because he 'saw something in his hand' that turned out to be a camera (pre-smartphone era).

He could have called the police, as there was no apparent aggression on the part of the student.

Instead he chose to shoot, and was acquitted 'on the stand your ground' aspect.

I think a lot of bad shootings are found to be justified out of fear that not doing so means losing the right to self-defense.

This is heinous and should stop, but it's neigh impossible to reason with people who use their fear as their first and/or most important metric in decision making.

Using a firearm wrongfully needs to incur serious penalties, but there also needs to be made the distinction of doing so and the belief that using a firearm is inherently wrong.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 23, 2021 10:22AM
Quote
kj
I object to the use of "upset conservative" as a synonym for "leader of a neo-nazi group". :-)

You mean like how "male" is a synonym for "bachelor"? :-)



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: November 23, 2021 10:54AM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
I'd be WAY more worried about bad drivers trying to kill me than someone with a firearm.

You have people TRYING to kill you with a car???

Come on, even you have to acknowledge how ridiculous that analogy is.

Perhaps a better way to say it would be "I'd be WAY more worried about being killed by a bad driver."



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: November 23, 2021 10:55AM
Quote
pdq
Beyond that, drinking alcohol (and to a degree that one dies from it) is a personal choice. No one else can kill me with alcohol. Only me.

Huh? Ever heard of drunk drivers?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Acer
Date: November 23, 2021 10:57AM
Quote
kj
Quote
Acer
I propose we ban analogies from gun arguments. We only end up debating the validity of the analogy, not the issue it was supposed to illuminate.

I would propose that it doesn't matter whether something is made to kill you or not: dead is dead. If we choose to continue using something when it has literally always killed people every day/month/year, then we are accepting those deaths as a reasonable cost, considering the benefits.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm not seeing the benefits of widespread gun availability. I'm told it makes us all "safer." But the gun-related homicide rate in the USA compared to similar countries where guns are much more restricted tells me I'm not getting my money's worth in the cost-benefit analysis.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 04:09PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Racer X
I'd be WAY more worried about bad drivers trying to kill me than someone with a firearm. Far more likely too.


Only a minority of American adults own guns. Only a minority of those are hunters. Most cite “personal protection” for themselves and their families as the reason they own guns, while ignoring the statistical certainty that bringing a gun into the home increases the risk of gun death in that home.

Beyond that, drinking alcohol (and to a degree that one dies from it) is a personal choice. No one else can kill me with alcohol. Only me. That’s not true of guns.

(Also, FWIW, I would say the 18th and 21st amendments, taken together, constitutionally allow states to allow alcohol production and consumption if they wish.)

Allowing is not the same as protected. Your state can make alcohol illegal, and the Feds allow that. Your state makes firearms ownership illegal, and the legal crap will hit the fan, and they will win too.

Ownership numbers are a bit fuzzy, because the US Government is forbidden to keep a record of firearms ownership. But the projected numbers are between @33%-40% of US adults own at least 1 firearm. In 2020 5 million first time firearm owners, and 2021 @3 million at last count. Based on NICS instant checks at time of purchase.

People get killed by others abusing alcohol every few minutes. Happens all the time, literally.

Vehicles kill about 38K-39K per year here in the US. 2020 data not available yet, that should drop a lot. But it is an anomaly from the norm.

"Annual United States Road Crash Statistics
More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. The U.S. traffic fatality rate is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. An additional 4.4 million are injured seriously enough to require medical attention." [www.asirt.org]

"The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total, being 11.9 per 100,000 in 2018."
[en.wikipedia.org]

I'm more concerned about vehicles than I am about firearms.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2021 04:28PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 23, 2021 04:59PM
I hope you can understand that folks like myself think that vehicles have a tremendous positive benefit for society, even when you consider the deaths related to them.

We don’t see any remotely comparable positive benefits from guns. I’m personally fine with hunters, or target shooters. Other countries have these as well, and are not awash in guns and gun bloodshed.

It’s a tax we pay as Americans unique to the developed world, and it’s one that we pay whether we own guns or not.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 05:19PM
very true.

One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do see the logic.

Now, the BATFE does have a database of tax stamps issued to NFA owners with legal automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, pistols with shoulder stocks, destructive devices, and sound suppressors. But in order to own these, you agreed to let the government have and keep that info.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: kj
Date: November 23, 2021 07:14PM
Two things: I think some of the benefits of guns are really hard to assess. The enjoyment of people who do like guns (not everyone has to partake in order for it to be worth having around). The deterrent factor, animal population control, etc.

Second, the negative impact of cars is a lot higher than just road accidents. You've got costs related to petroleum, manufacturing of all the car related products, air quality, global warming, and a lot more.

I don't have time to do an exhaustive cost/benefit analysis (who does/could, and why), but the analogy does point out that we put up with a lot of risk (someone brought up alcohol, which is also a biggie), due to the benefits, and that does, in my mind, put to rest a lot of arguments against gun ownership.

I personally do agree with most here that we're out of wack as far as the balance goes, but I don't know how to approach the problem. I think at this point there is no trust between the "sides" and that is going to limit what can be done to address the problem in earnest.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: kj
Date: November 23, 2021 07:23PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
pdq
Beyond that, drinking alcohol (and to a degree that one dies from it) is a personal choice. No one else can kill me with alcohol. Only me.

Huh? Ever heard of drunk drivers?

Alcohol is an incredible burden on society. Loss of productivity, child/spouse abuse, etc. etc. Responsible drinkers might be a lot like responsible gun owners winking smiley.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 07:38PM
very fair kj. But when someone like that asshat running into the Christmas Parade, or like someone in my hometown who has 11+ DUI convictions, people don't get wound up about them on a nuclear scale. And they should.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2021 07:53PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 08:00PM
And firearm data about preventing a crime or murder is very problematic. On 2 occasions I have pulled my concealed pistol to protect my life, but the assailant fled both times. There is no record, other than police reports, so no statistics were added to.

Both times I had assailants lunge at me with knives, one connected, and I have a small scar on my belly from that. Being partially disabled, with somewhat limited mobility, I could not retreat, which is the first and preferred option. (this is why Kyle is an idiot. He did nothing to prevent a confrontation, like NOT BEING THERE)

So, you can see that there are very real reasons why someone might make the choices I and others do.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: davester
Date: November 23, 2021 08:01PM
Quote
Racer X
One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. .

Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 23, 2021 09:49PM
Quote
davester
Quote
Racer X
One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. .

Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there.

[giffords.org]

[www.businessinsider.com]

[archive.epic.org]

When the FBI conducts a background check, they are prohibited from saving the data, AND, from transferring the data to any other federal agency. Thus, no national database can be kept.

[nationalinterest.org]

"The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) actually had some prohibitions against the establishment of a national gun registry by federal law enforcement, but there could be a work around. "

Too lazy? I googled for you.

[www.atf.gov]

[en.wikipedia.org]

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 [www.law.cornell.edu]) being:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

AND, regarding privately owned registered fully automatic weapons, "Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime" I threw this in because it illustrates that the most dangerous weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens aren't actually being used to cause problems.

IN YOUR FACE SUCKA!

The reason that the FOPA of 1986 had to be enacted in the first place was the government was abusing its authority and investigating and harassing firearm owners who weren't criminals, nor accused of a crime. They were essentially entrapping those who had no intent to break the law. You wonder why there is distrust?



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2021 10:14PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Sam3
Date: November 24, 2021 04:00AM
Quote
Lux Interior
Quote
mattkime
Its almost as though the right to open carry has some downsides.

You just have to make sure you shoot first.

Then say that you "feared for your life."

But make sure you get a kill shot. Don't want any return fire.

And then go and have sex.

[www.dailydot.com]

Quote
dailydot.com
“Killing is just not that big a deal.” “Feel good about it.” Later goes on to say that sex after killing another human “is the best sex,” a “very intense sex,” and one of the “perks that come with the job" LE agencies pay Dave Grossman to train police officers to take pride in shooting people. from PublicFreakout



The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: November 24, 2021 05:31AM
Regardless of where one stands on gun ownership, Ted King's OP still stands as extremely worrisome...


Immediately after Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal on Friday, the fringe right’s online forums lit up with celebration — and among some, a belief that they too can kill without legal consequence. On Telegram, a secure messaging app popular with extremists, the leader of a neo-Nazi group wrote that the verdict gives “good Americans legal precedent and license to kill violent commies without worrying about doing life in prison if we defend ourselves in a riot.”

There is every reason to take such rhetoric seriously. “It has never taken more than a whisper of approval to fan the flames of militant right action. The Kenosha acquittal is a shout,” writes Kathleen Belew, a historian of white power movements at the University of Chicago. Based on how it’s been cheered in some quarters, the verdict is potentially setting the stage for future violence.


...the emboldened part especially so.

Not a lawyer, I'd still say the verdict set no legal precedent.

It merely upheld, rightly or wrongly, the State's self-defense law(s).

It granted no new privilege or legal right(s).

Yet some crazy is saying so, fanning the aforementioned flames, his sole intent.

I used to reference The Handmaid's Tale in jest, mainly.

But the reaction to the verdict, however predictable, is truly worrisome.

I want to be wrong, but there's real trouble ahead.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 24, 2021 05:43AM
every state has different laws about open carry, "Castle Doctrine", "Stand Your Ground" and what constitutes self defense.

It's so bad, and hard to keep track of, I have smartphone apps that describe, state by state, what is and isn't allowed.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: November 24, 2021 07:01AM
every state has different laws about open carry, "Castle Doctrine", "Stand Your Ground" and what constitutes self defense.


But that isn't the point.

The trial wasn't about carry, the judged addressed that.

The point is, the NG verdict as been interpreted by one unnamed individual above, as permission to kill, not defend, but kill.

This 'banner' will be picked up and held by many extremists who will certainly claim 'I know the law...' when most likely they don't.

My concern is about those who are just aching for a chance do 'defend themselves'.

While I don't know the actual definition of 'self-defense' in many let alone every state, I'll wager that implicit in the core of such definitions is a reasonable belief of fear of life or great bodily harm being threatened.

And I'd bet that a large number of gun owners don't know the laws of their state regarding the lawful use of deadly force for self-defense.

This means the risk of innocent people being wrongfully injured or killed 'in the name of self-defense'.

I'm saying that the majority of people cheering and celebrating this verdict will agree with the above emboldened statement, whether or not they see it.

Many on the fence who do see it will jump to the Right side.

We are seeing a side of Ugly American at home that is growing in number, and I find that troubling, state laws not withstanding.

If I'm wrong in agreeing with the quote, I'll be happy to be so, and willingly admit it.

Don't hold your breath.





Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 24, 2021 08:59AM
My statement was more about that the outcome in one state could very easily been VERY different in another simply because the laws vary wildly.

What really sucks is that even though the verdict may have been technically correct based on the law there, the verdict based on context should have been different. He went there looking for trouble.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: November 24, 2021 02:08PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
davester
Quote
Racer X
One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. .

Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there.

[giffords.org]

[www.businessinsider.com]

[archive.epic.org]

When the FBI conducts a background check, they are prohibited from saving the data, AND, from transferring the data to any other federal agency. Thus, no national database can be kept.

[nationalinterest.org]

"The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) actually had some prohibitions against the establishment of a national gun registry by federal law enforcement, but there could be a work around. "

Too lazy? I googled for you.

[www.atf.gov]

[en.wikipedia.org]

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 [www.law.cornell.edu]) being:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

AND, regarding privately owned registered fully automatic weapons, "Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime" I threw this in because it illustrates that the most dangerous weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens aren't actually being used to cause problems.

IN YOUR FACE SUCKA!

The reason that the FOPA of 1986 had to be enacted in the first place was the government was abusing its authority and investigating and harassing firearm owners who weren't criminals, nor accused of a crime. They were essentially entrapping those who had no intent to break the law. You wonder why there is distrust?

Which of the “Founding Fathers” sponsored or spoke in favor of that 1986 FOPA act??
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: kj
Date: November 24, 2021 02:21PM
Quote
Racer X
very fair kj. But when someone like that asshat running into the Christmas Parade, or like someone in my hometown who has 11+ DUI convictions, people don't get wound up about them on a nuclear scale. And they should.

Yes, I think there is a subset of more radical people for whom this kind of event does not add anything to their narrative.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: davester
Date: November 24, 2021 03:54PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
Quote
davester
Quote
Racer X
One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. .

Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there.

[giffords.org]

[www.businessinsider.com]

[archive.epic.org]

When the FBI conducts a background check, they are prohibited from saving the data, AND, from transferring the data to any other federal agency. Thus, no national database can be kept.

[nationalinterest.org]

"The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) actually had some prohibitions against the establishment of a national gun registry by federal law enforcement, but there could be a work around. "

Too lazy? I googled for you.

[www.atf.gov]

[en.wikipedia.org]

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 [www.law.cornell.edu]) being:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

AND, regarding privately owned registered fully automatic weapons, "Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime" I threw this in because it illustrates that the most dangerous weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens aren't actually being used to cause problems.

IN YOUR FACE SUCKA!

The reason that the FOPA of 1986 had to be enacted in the first place was the government was abusing its authority and investigating and harassing firearm owners who weren't criminals, nor accused of a crime. They were essentially entrapping those who had no intent to break the law. You wonder why there is distrust?

Which of the “Founding Fathers” sponsored or spoke in favor of that 1986 FOPA act??

...or stated that preventing confiscation of individuals' firearms was essential to freedom. This certainly doesn't appear to be an issue in innumerable other countries where citizens are arguably freer than US citizens.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 24, 2021 04:07PM
Davester,
"Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there."

Yes, I have numerous documentation that at least part of my statement is true. Nice dodge there on your part, ignoring my proof.

I don't happen to have my Samuel Elliot Morrison books handy, but he covers the confiscation issue, and the Founding Fathers nicely.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 24, 2021 04:37PM
Quote
Racer X
"Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime"

IN YOUR FACE SUCKA!

…which is again an argument, which even if true, seems disingenuous, given that semi-automatic assault rifles seem to be the weapon of choice in the worst mass shootings in this country. (Yes, I know the difference. No, it doesn’t really matter.) Columbine, Las Vegas, Aurora, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Parkland. It goes on and on.

It’s the weapon of choice (and path of little-to-no-resistance) for the planful mass killer who wants a maximum body count.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 24, 2021 04:42PM
Of all the murders in the US involving firearms, long guns, of ALL types, comprise a minority. [ucr.fbi.gov]

Even if you stipulate that many unreported are modern sporting rifles, instead of shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols, they are still in the minority.

And, please feel free to change the Constitution. It can be done. The vast majority of firearm owners aren't causing the problem. And apparently none of the registered full automatic owners as well.

As with most things, its a tiny fraction of the people screwing things up for the rest.

I can't get pain meds because of the abusers, yet alcohol, which causes more deaths in the US, is freely available.

It's not about saving lives, its about appeasing voters, and getting re-elected. But the Second Amendment, the FOPA of 1986, and other laws, are there to prevent emotions from making snap changes and to limit abuses.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2021 06:16PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 24, 2021 06:16PM
No one commenting on why the government is prohibited by law from having a non-NFA firearms owner's database? Because even Congress admitted that the BATFE couldn't be trusted to obey the law, and not harass firearms owners. THAT'S one of the main reasons why the FOPA was enacted.

Nothing? No one is suddenly incredulous? No one surprised? Stunned?



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 25, 2021 08:52AM
Quote
Racer X
Of all the murders in the US involving firearms, long guns, of ALL types, comprise a minority. [ucr.fbi.gov]

Even if you stipulate that many unreported are modern sporting rifles, instead of shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols, they are still in the minority.

Racer, I feel like you keep responding with arguments that you think are convincing, but are anything but. Your own link shows that the guns are responsible for the vast majority of the murders in this country - over 75% - and nothing else even comes close. Fourteen thousand Americans a year! Ten times - ten times! the rate of most any other developed country:



It doesn’t have to be this way. And personally, I believe that more guns is exactly the wrong answer.

Quote
Racer X
And, please feel free to change the Constitution. It can be done.

And it should be. The second amendment is an anachronism of the 18th century, when states had well-regulated militias.

This country could drag itself out of that deadly anachronism, even if by baby steps. Something like the 21st amendment; the second amendment is hereby repealed; states can make their own gun laws. Let each state decide.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 25, 2021 02:57PM
No, I said LONG GUNS. L O N G G U N S. Long Guns.

" Of all the murders in the US involving firearms, long guns, of ALL types, comprise a minority. [ucr.fbi.gov] "

And simply have them in the household doesn't magically kill you by accident either. [www.thetruthaboutguns.com]

"The author is a PhD researcher and professor in Canada, and got his data directly from the US CDC and the Canadian government. "Gary Mauser, PhD is professor emeritus in the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies and the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. He specializes in criminology and economics, has published extensively on firearms legislation, firearms and violence, and has provided expert testimony on criminal justice issues to the Canadian government."



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2021 03:07PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 25, 2021 03:05PM
Quote
davester
Quote
Racer X
One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom. .

Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there.

I covered the database, now about the Founding Fathers and Firearms relating to Freedom.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

My personal favorite, and they knew this 250 years ago!

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2021 04:13PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 25, 2021 03:14PM
pdq, one thing that we ALL must be carefull of, is to protect certain rights for ALL US citizens, and the only way to do that is at the Federal Level.

See how things are going with respect to abortion? Some states seem to think they can do as they please, making things VERY uneven. And by simply being 20 miles in the wrong direction, a female can be screwed.

We also end up with the situation, where massive population centers in a state dictate to everyone else. In Washington, 3 counties dictate to the other 36. In California, San Fransisco and Greater LA control the state. Simply by living somewhere outside these population centers, your vote doesn't matter any more, from a practical stand point.

By protecting crucial things at the Federal Level, EVERYONE is protected evenly.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2021 03:34PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 25, 2021 05:35PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Racer X
Of all the murders in the US involving firearms, long guns, of ALL types, comprise a minority. [ucr.fbi.gov]

Even if you stipulate that many unreported are modern sporting rifles, instead of shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols, they are still in the minority.

Racer, I feel like you keep responding with arguments that you think are convincing, but are anything but. Your own link shows that the guns are responsible for the vast majority of the murders in this country - over 75% - and nothing else even comes close. Fourteen thousand Americans a year! Ten times - ten times! the rate of most any other developed country:



It doesn’t have to be this way. And personally, I believe that more guns is exactly the wrong answer.

Quote
Racer X
And, please feel free to change the Constitution. It can be done.

And it should be. The second amendment is an anachronism of the 18th century, when states had well-regulated militias.

This country could drag itself out of that deadly anachronism, even if by baby steps. Something like the 21st amendment; the second amendment is hereby repealed; states can make their own gun laws. Let each state decide.

The "well regulated militia" phrase is often used as an excuse to abolish the 2nd A, but the overall context could very well be this. I said COULD BE. It's a belief, not a fact.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

This is about crime. NOT an army. He is quoting a CRIMINOLOGIST. Maybe the militia is more about protecting from crime? That would seem to fit. If so, our local municipal "militias" aren't working.

When you look at the subject with this as the lens, it looks like a very different meaning.

The single biggest stumbling block about the whole subject of firearm ownership for personal protection, is that there is no way to quantify something that didn't happen. No way to get accurate or verifiable states on lives saved. We both can agree on that, I'm sure. Twice I needed to protect myself with a concealed pistol against a knife wielding attacker. One even drew blood. But there is no way to prove that my actions saved my life twice. Maybe? Maybe not? No way to know. No data doesn't mean my point of view is wrong.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2021 05:50PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 25, 2021 05:56PM
FWIW, that quote attributed to Jefferson doesn’t mention militias at all, and also doesn’t address what it meant to “bear arms” in that era. But honestly, that’s a distraction.

The quote is unfortunately untrue in the 21st century by empirical evidence. In the developed world, we have by far the most guns; we have by far the most gun deaths and by far the most gun murders. There’s just no way around that.

The two of us will obviously have to agree to disagree, but I consider the gun situation in America to be a cancer, and I will vote whenever I can to end that cancer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: "Kyle Rittenhouse and the scary future of the American right"
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 25, 2021 06:19PM
And that is certainly you right. And when we DON'T exercise our Rights, we do a HUGE disservice to those before us who gave their lives to secure and protect them.

Jefferson's quote was to show that at least he, as a Founding Father, was very concerned about the confiscation of firearms. It has to do with our government confiscating firearms. It was more aimed at davester, who was skeptical about every aspect my statement


Quote
Racer X
"One reason the federal government is expressly forbidden from having a database of firearms owners is that it prevents confiscation, which is something the Founding Fathers felt to be essential to freedom."

Quote
davester

"Do you have any documentation that any part of that sentence is true? I am skeptical about everything you said there."

I both proved that the government is prohibited by law from having a firearm owners database (the FOPA of 1986) and that as far back as the Founding Fathers there has been concern about firearm confiscation. I have that quote from Jefferson, where he was quoting a noted criminologist of the day. So at the very bare minimum, at least ONE founding father believed that. I strongly believe the attackers they were referring to could be any attacker. Up to, and including unlawful acts by law enforcement (they did have some), tax collectors, their own government, foreign governments, or even just a neighbor with ill intent. Anyone acting unlawfully. I can't be the only one who believes this.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2021 07:07PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 120
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020