You must log in or register to comment.
#ComeAndTakeWhatExactly
#WhatDidTimTakeFromYou
that is not what i thought the hashtag/pound was used for
“Come and take it” is a pretty standard gun nut refrain. So he did actually use that hashtag correctly.
Except that nobody wants to take his stupid gun. Very reputable for whipping up ammosexuals though.
Yes, but thats just allowed now. 🤷♂️
Go ahead and take it. He’ll just cry and whine to the 2A nuts.
Its pretty funny with some people are claiming he’s trans
Hey, Tampon? Tim?
Yeah, to me it reads like wee Kyle was just being polite and offering Tim Walz some of it’s spare feminine hygiene products.
It’s really sad to me that one of the most powerful tools in the republican campaign’s arsenal is juvenile nicknames for their opponents. An actual Trump campaigning innovation: Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, sleepy Joe, etc. And it works. Like really, really well.
Turns out many voters are swayed by elementary school level debate tactics.
It’s not sad. It’s by design.
Same thing as “orange man bad”. It takes away critical thinking and simplifies the issue for their little brain.
That makes sense though, given how many voters have an elementary school level maturity and education.
Any voter that stupid is no longer a voter, they are a drone. There’s no choice in the vote, they are reacting to basic stimulus, like a pillbug avoiding light.
It seems like only one party wants and creates drones.
Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.
Most things requiring background checks weren’t guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so it’s not quite comparable.
The Bill of Rights literally says “well-regulated”.
The current laws are a violation of the constitution because they are clearly not well-regulated by any reasonable definition.
In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.
plus trained and disciplined. Not just supplied, able.
That was the reason for the right, not a command.
Ok fine. Lets go with that. I expect now that every man to be given an M15, a pack of HE grenades, atleast 2 Abrams tanks, and an A10 warthog.
You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.
Warships… that had to sail isolated oceans and had to protect themselves in a lawless ocean. Thats much different.
Everything is fine until only the wealthy owns their own private army and decides taxes are “unfair”.
there is no M15
It does exist. Its based on the M14. https://gatdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/13068-SA.1..jpg
And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.
In context of the time period
The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.
The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.
When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.
You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?
I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.
Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.
Oh come on. Everyone gets a vote now. If you suppress someone’s vote, it’s unconstitutional.
14th, 1868
edit: or shit: 26th, 1971
14th, 1868
14th what?
Oh, you mean the 14th Amendment, as in the document can be updated and changed.
How many gun owners are part of a militia?
Every single one.
lol
In the context of the time period, it was a replacement for a standing army.
As we have one, then obviously that amendment no longer has any meaning then? So we should just remove it. Cool.
I’m more for disbanding the standing military than disarming the citizenry.
Why not both?
Because then we’ll get invaded by whoever wishes it and have to deal with whatever bullshit they push on us. Are you stupid?
Walz owns guns. He’s a hunter. Trying to paint him as anti-gun is pretty silly.
My feelings does not care your facts and logic. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It’s not even an empty threat here, he has killed and he will kill again
He’s allowed to kill again.
Shittenhouse makes an excellent use case for drone strikes, I have to admit.
Tough guy
I swear he has such a punchable face.
War crime worthy, ngl.
I’m not touching him with my bare hands.
Can I have your turn then?
I’ll punch him for both of us - I work in the trades, I’m used to industrial strength hand cleaners.
He’ll kill you and become even more of a hero
Did you forget the /s?
I doubt he can squeeze a single orange on his own.
Remember when this tough guy got bullied on the internet?
He looks like a baby that just ate a lemon wedge for the first time.
Wrong person survived that night
What is like to simp for a useless little rightwing murderer?
…I think he’s saying he wished Rittenhouse was dead. Since he was the survivor.
So you admit he was fighting for his life?
He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.
If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…
And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
Don’t fuck around if you don’t want to find out.
It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.
HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!
Why weren’t you in the trial, out of curiosity? I’d have thought they’d be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering…
https://heavy.com/news/gaige-grosskreutz/
I didn’t remember it perfectly, but certainly a lot that is ignored by those who hate Rittenhouse. I was mistaken when I said the guy with the handgun is a felon. He WAS a felon and seems like an all around piece of shit, but his felony was expunged so he was legally allowed to possess a firearm. He did have a loaded handgun in his hand when approaching Kyle though.
Dude. He was found not guilty. If there was evidence of him being there for no reason other than to kill somebody then I’m sure he would have been convicted. I remember fairly well that he retreated but got attacked by a guy trying to hit him in the head with a skateboard (weapon) and shooting the arm of a felon brandishing a handgun at him.
I’m sure Kyle is glad you’re out here white-knighting for him.
Whatever you say bro.
What a ridiculous thing to say. They didn’t insinuate that in any way.
The other gun would disagree with the validity of that.
Why did he cross state lines with a weapon after threatening violence?
Because it’s not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.
And what “shit” was he doing there?
Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.
The guy he shot was a pedo.
Whether the person he shot was a convicted or suspected felon is absolutely irrelevant, vigilante justice is no justice at all, not to mention that he had no way of knowing anything about the people he shot.
That said, I absolutely believe all three were legitimate self-defense. The problem here isn’t that he shot people in self-defense, but that he was a minor in possession of a firearm. Anyone who enabled him to bring that firearm to Kenosha should be held responsible (if they haven’t already).
I agree with all of your points.
I am willing to bet kyle is one too.
Sure. He should be in jail being converted into a Fleshlight by bubba.
“If you don’t agree with the extrajudicial execution of a person by an 18-year old dipshit, you’re a pedophile”
Seriously, put some attempt in please. That is just fucking lazy
Not what I said. The things I said were two different statements. Don’t come at me cause you’ve got small skeletons in your closet.
That’s a joke.
You’re right, what I meant was the guy deserves some sympathy because he’s dead. The guy does not deserve sympathy based on his previous actions, AND he tried to kill some kid.
Kyle is objectively in the right here, but he shouldn’t have been where he was, doing what he was doing. Fuck Kyle. I’m not condoning him.
Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.
You’re trying to claim ^ that doesn’t clearly imply that people who downvoted your comment were “probably pedos”?
Eh. Is this really worth the effort? For either of us?
I like forums. If you don’t, then don’t use them.
Especially don’t use them if you don’t have the moxy to stand behind your own words. Word’s which you said. Which go like this:
Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.
You’re trying to walk back the thing you now realise was pretty silly to wrote down. So youre trying to ignore your bs while still replying something.
You directly implied people who disagree with you are pedophiles. What an intellectual take.
Yea you said that part already cause it’s what I said. By that logic if you are disagreeing that this isn’t worth the time to keep going back and forth about youre probably a pedophile.
I like forums too 🙂. I also realIze what I said was fucking weird and back tracked a bit. If you let this go, I’m sure your experience here will be ever so slightly less negative. There’s plenty of other things to be doing on Lemmy then arguing with someone who’s joke didn’t land for you specifically.
It would be entirely easier to call me a dick out loud, chuckle at how much better you are for thinking a different opinion and moving on.
Hey, Trump is both of those things too, per courts of law. You must be pretty broken up he survived the attempt, huh?
No it is not a threat. To tell somebody that you’re willing to defend yourself and your rights with violence is only a threat to those who will take them. It’s a secondary reaction not a primary action.
Can’t be a threat when you own a handgun. Only absolute fucking cowardly pussies own handguns, so they’re no threat
Simple logic
I promise it would be a threat in your eyes if it were someone you liked. You troglodytes are the biggest hypocrites on earth.
I’m not one for violating others. It wouldn’t apply.
No one came to take anything away from him. The only rights infringed are the people whose live he ended prematurely. Stop your bullshit.
I want my cake back.
Ah yes, everyone remembers the Cake massacre of Columbine in 1999…
Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women’s conception rights/bodily autonomy? The whole “handmaid’s tale” thing is exactly this. Everything is the handmaid’s tale when it comes to women’s rights, but these rights are just problematic. I want women to have rights, and Americans to have gun rights. Rights for everyone, tyranny for no one.
Would you think the same if it was a comment about taking women’s conception rights/bodily autonomy?
No, because Women’s right are good. Taking away some of them is bad. The point your missing is I don’t want you to have guns. Any argument you make about “taking away some rights is a step towards taking away more rights” is going to be met with me saying “Good.”
None of this is an argument that it is good for you to have guns. I find it interesting that the comic equates guns to cake, something that is a luxury that serves no purpose other than the users enjoyment. If someone takes away all your cake your not suddenly living in some hellscape, you’re just not as happy as you would be with cake. If you own guns just because it makes you happy, you are exactly the type of person who should not be allowed to own guns.
That’s what we call mask off. If the gun grabbers wouldn’t be so sneaky and two-faced we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants, not “won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
I think most of the public doesn’t want to worry about being shot.
That’s what we call mask off
What mask? I never claimed otherwise.
“won’t someone PLEASE think of the children” emotional arguments hiding the real goal.
What do you think is the reason for the “real goal”?
we’d have a real outcome based on what the public wants
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/index.html
Overall, 64% say they favor stricter gun control laws, with 36% opposed
When did women’s right shoot up a school the last time?
Ironically it’s probably because of all the unwanted children due to legal or cultural prohibitions on abortion that cause the misery needed to lead to school shootings. Aside from that, people sucking does not mean I lose my rights. Tell the media to stop reporting gang shootings near schools as school shootings and drive-bys as mass shootings. Tell the media to stop publicizing the shooters and making them “interesting” to the public. Lots of that shit is copycats.
You don’t have the right to make a nuclear bomb in your backyard, either.
When they passed laws against drinking and driving, people complained that the government was taking away their rights. Same with requiring you to wear a seatbelt.
Some billionaire is going to fund his education and get him elected to Congress. Watch and see
Nah, Rittenhouse has largely had his 15 minutes of fame. He has been getting less, and less, interest from the right-wing media machine.
He could have had that if he played his cards right… but he’s an idiot.
Rittenhouse is a murderer.
Disagree, all three counts were legitimate self-defense. Two people tried to grab his gun, and a third pointed a gun at him, and each of those are clear-cut cases of self-defense.
The real issue here is that he shouldn’t have been there with a rifle in the first place. But if you have a firearm and someone tries to grab it, it’s your responsibility to maintain control of that firearm. I don’t think he is a murderer, but he was (and probably still is) an irresponsible kid who shouldn’t have unsupervised possession of a firearm.
He went there looking for an excuse to commit self defense. He’s a fucking murderer.
Again, putting yourself into a dangerous situation isn’t a crime.
I don’t think he’s a good person and he’s certainly not a hero, but I also don’t think he’s a murderer. He’s a minor who should not have been armed in that situation. But once he was in that situation, his actions were justified self-defense.
Again, putting yourself into a dangerous situation isn’t a crime.
Going there with the intention of killing people is. Which Rittenhouse did.
You can’t pre-meditate self-defense. You can go somewhere with the expectation that you’ll need to defend yourself, which is dumb, but not a crime. Planning to hurt someone is very different from trying to put yourself into a situation where hurting someone would be justified. The first is a crime, the second is just being stupid.
For example, look at those people who do 1st amendment “audits” who basically go to places where they know the police would be called with the hope that the police will violate their rights (e.g. filming at a police station). That’s not a crime, but it’s usually a waste of time, but it sometimes provides a valuable service if it creates a situation where bad cops break the law on camera and get held accountable. But whether it provides a valuable service or not isn’t particularly relevant here, what’s relevant is that it’s not a crime.
And that’s what happens here. Kyle Rittenhouse is one of my least favorite types of people, but I firmly believe that he was justified in using his firearm in self-defense. That doesn’t make him a hero or even a good person (I think he’s a terrible person), but it does mean he’s not a murderer. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person, and his actions were lawful self-defense.
You can’t pre-meditate self-defense.
Of course you can. You just go somewhere intending to get in a fight and kill your opponent.
Which is what Rittenhouse did.
Sure, but he didn’t start the fight, he just placed himself into a position where a fight was likely to occur. If you start a fight (e.g. with fighting words), then you can be charged with a crime, potentially murder. That doesn’t seem to be the case, so just placing yourself into a tense situation with the hope that someone else will initiate isn’t a crime in itself.
Threatening to kill again
I really like Walz and hate Rittenhouse but this is not a death threat in any way. Plus Walz is a hunter and owns guns.
It’s 100% an implied threat.
This is Kyle’s full video on the matter:
Don’t give him views.
trust me, you’ll be into it.
Not actually him, don’t worry
“Bite my lip and play with my hair” lol
hahaha that’s probably my favorite line
He can’t get a job so all he has left is being a grifter.
