Kansas Crimson

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:10 pm If it was the last time you saw me this butt-hurt, it was prob cuz that was the last time you saw me, since you only come out of the woodwork to antagonize when your perceived side is winning.

#owned

Meh. I drop in every once in awhile to see if anyone actually wants to discuss issues. But, as always, you all just want your liberal echo chamber and throw a fit until dissenting voices are silenced. Sad, but not unexpected.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:50 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:10 pm If it was the last time you saw me this butt-hurt, it was prob cuz that was the last time you saw me, since you only come out of the woodwork to antagonize when your perceived side is winning.

#owned

Meh. I drop in every once in awhile to see if anyone actually wants to discuss issues. But, as always, you all just want your liberal echo chamber and throw a fit until dissenting voices are silenced. Sad, but not unexpected.

It musta been a while since you dropped in, cuz it’s been a while since I was a liberal.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:44 pm if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:56 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:39 pm
I think he would have been rightly convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.

Really?

Do ya mean that?

Even if it meant a young man otherwise just starting out his life may have spent time in the slammer?

Lord knows the same has happened to other young men. Who otherwise had their entire lives ahead of them. For weapons charges too! Without even necessarily killing someone. And certainly without the judge tossing the charge on some technicality.

And that begs a fundamental sort of question - is it appropriate for a defendant to claim legal self-defense, with an illegal weapon?

For real though, how often do you see a defendant on trial for double homicide, directly next to/behind a judge, not cuffed or restrained or anything, just sorta hanging out together?

BTW pretty sure they were watching spongebob.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:53 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:44 pm if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

What would those inconsistencies and hypocrisies be? I think I have addressed them as they were posed, but I could be mistaken.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:56 pm If you’d like to, feel free to stop dodging these questions

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:56 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:39 pm
I think he would have been rightly convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.

Really?
Yes, really.
Do ya mean that?
Yes, I do mean that.
Even if it meant a young man otherwise just starting out his life may have spent time in the slammer?
Yes. I think they were able to inappropriately apply the Wisconsin law pertaining to deer hunting rifles to his AR. He should never have been walking around in public with an assault rifle, much less in a volatile setting like Kenosha was at the time.

Lord knows the same has happened to other young men. Who otherwise had their entire lives ahead of them. For weapons charges too! Without even necessarily killing someone. And certainly without the judge tossing the charge on some technicality.

And that begs a fundamental sort of question - is it appropriate for a defendant to claim legal self-defense, with an illegal weapon?
So, you're saying that, if he had, say, a baseball bat and beat two men to death and injured a third with it in order to defend himself, you'd be fine with it? I think self-defense is self-defense. He wasn't hurting anybody until he was attacked and pursued, which, definitionally, makes it self-defense, regardless of how anyone feels about him having an AR-15 in his possession.

For real though, how often do you see a defendant on trial for double homicide, directly next to/behind a judge, not cuffed or restrained or anything, just sorta hanging out together?

It was odd. Knowing you, you're angling for a race issue, but I'm not gonna bite.

BTW pretty sure they were watching spongebob.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:58 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:53 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:44 pm if only that’s all you were was a dissenting voice

you can’t even own up to your own inconsistencies/hypocrisies in this thread, and you have the gall to accuse anyone else if not wanting to have an honest discussion?

gtfo

What would those inconsistencies and hypocrisies be? I think I have addressed them as they were posed, but I could be mistaken.

you didn’t address shit

rather, you accused me of being a simpleton

gtfo…your rock likely misses you

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:09 pm I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:06 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:09 pm I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone NEEDS an AR. That's subjective and assumes that people can't choose for themselves. Like it or not, the Second Amendment gives citizens a RIGHT to own one.

The better question is when and where one should be allowed to carry the weapon. In my opinion, Rittenhouse - or anyone, for that matter - has no valid reason to carry an AR-15 in public, much less in a volatile setting like the one in Kenosha last year.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:16 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:06 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:09 pm I admit my ignorance. I assume he (or his buddy) gets his buddy's AR-15 back. Yes? No?
I assume it's been talked about why his buddy feels/felt the need to own an AR-15.
If so, anyone know why?
Am I wrong for feeling NO CITIZEN NEEDS an AR-15?

I think you're asking the wrong question. It is irrelevant whether or not anyone NEEDS an AR. That's subjective and assumes that people can't choose for themselves. Like it or not, the Second Amendment gives citizens a RIGHT to own one.

The better question is when and where one should be allowed to carry the weapon. In my opinion, Rittenhouse - or anyone, for that matter - has no valid reason to carry an AR-15 in public, much less in a volatile setting like the one in Kenosha last year.

Yeah.

The lengths the court went to apparently normalize the carrying of a military-style weapon in public, particularly in an area already with a curfew order, is wild.

But I suppose an imperial-colonial system that values personal property more than human lives is nothing new.

sdoyel wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:05 pm This will happen again.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:19 pm Since it was said Rittenhouse acted in self defense, what will Gaige Grosskreutz be arrested and tried for?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:11 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:53 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:11 am

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.