deadheadskier wrote: ↑Aug 27th, '20, 21:47
Y
ou couldn't possibly look dumber than defending a civilian militia no matter what their age to defend property other than their own.
These asshats are not professionally trained in engagement of criminals or de-escalation of violence. No matter how good their intentions are of stopping scum looters, they are NOT the answer.
Um, what exactly do you think a militia is? They are the citizenry, not professionally trained. They are groups of people, by definition unrelated to each other and do not own collectively each others property. So yes, a militia will defend property other than their own.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Aug 28th, '20, 06:03
When did I ever say we don't need cops?
And yes, I'm denouncing the clearly UNtrained 17 year old.
I don't support looters. They're committing a crime and should be arrested.
I also don't support civilian militias as the means to stop those crimes; especially 17 year olds.
Don't think all the facts are in yet, but we do know that:
Multiple cities have had ongoing nightly riots for weeks on end.
Multiple businesses have been looted, burned, destroyed.
Police have not intervened in these cases.
If you are a business owner, and your life's work is being destroyed, do you have the right to protect it?
For all those anti 2nd amendment types who in the past said you don't need a gun, the police are there for that, well welcome to 2020. The police are not there. In fact, the police are rarely there in any prior year, but you couldn't comprehend that. Now it is on in full color right in front of the nation.
So why with no police protection, would anyone object to groups of individuals protecting property?
Let's read the 2nd amendment again.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say career ex law enforcement types. It doesn't say professional marksman. It doesn't even say license holder. It says
the people. The regular folks. The amateurs.
How do you possibly know what training Rittenhouse had? How is that relevant to any legal charges?
DHS will probably argue about whether or not the shooter was well regulated or not. This actually has no bearing. What has bearing is the legitimacy of the shooting. I think this is for the courts, as a finder of fact in the legitimacy of the shooting. Where I do differ is the right of the shooter to be present protecting property (If in fact that's what he was doing) and then to defend himself. Defaming him because of his weight, age, open carrying, or other inconsequential prejudical parameters is just.... just.... just so DHS.
This incident, along with the others recently, brings the concept of a militia in lieu of an absent, impotent police department into present day clarity. It may bring relevance to a dusty 229 year old law. It may bring about a different public view on firearm ownership.
DHS, you need to reconsider the rights of property owners to defend their property (and in other cases their homes). With or without help from others. The tragedy of the situation does not change the reason those laws were written.
Also, for the Barney Fife one bullet or limited size magazine proponents, Rittenhouse had to defend himself 3 times in a short time span. Leaving aside what the evidence shows in court on how justified the shooting was, this shows how in the real world limiting ammunition to a 1 digit number is not an educated position.