Kyle Rittenhouse case

GuitarVH

Kingfisher
Orthodox Inquirer

This reminds me of a fake "Mandela" effect where it says:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them. Isaiah 11:6 (NASB)

Mandela people think it used to say "the lion will dwell with the lamb". Anyway, it didn't. I think it's because of all the drawings of the lion and the lamb.

OK, now back to the guy who doesn't think the little citizens should have guns. 2 week old profile, he must be very wise. (/s)
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Orthodox
Yes, a tool is a tool which is given power by its user. But why do we have tools that are designed to efficiently murder?
Ok, you can say they're good for hunting animals for meat and I accept that, although I'm sure there are alternatives (including not eating meat, but that is a whole other debate), so let's suppose that guns be only used for this purpose, in which case, I might not feel the need to take this position, although I think we all know, that ship has long since sailed.
Yes, they are an equalizer, but only in the same way that not having them at all would be.

Representation in Hollywood/popular culture is certainly no benchmark of moral justification.

And yes, for those incapable of martial defence, I can see the value of a gun as form of protection, and do not begrudge those who feel the need for that in today's world, but that sad reality does nothing to mitigate my original supposition. It's more acquiescing to the fear mongering and divisionary tactics which I mentioned in my original post.
I think statistical comparisons of deaths by gun between the USA and , oh, any other country in the world will bear out my point.

Thanks for engaging in actual discourse, but respectfully, I'm not buying it.
I'll bite since you engaged me and you say youre not an American.

Mankind has always designed tools for a myriad of things. You are implying the motive of murder for their use. I dont. I've shot hogs/deer/other varmits with an AR 15. Having been in the Marines... people are something that have also been shot at with said tools.

I carry guns everywhere I go. I assume everyone I interact with does so also... whether its random crackhead at a gas station, my ex wife, or the pizza guy delivering at my doorstep. Doesnt bother me for a second.

You are missing the point about Hollywood. Culturally its a part of being an American. You dont get that... just like I dont get a lunch time siesta in Mexico, or a 5 x daily prayer routine in Saudi Arabia. The point is that there are cultural realities that manifest in behavior. You may state that they are immoral/disagreeable for your tastes/culture/background... BUT EVEN SO ITS IRRELEVANT TO KYLE RITTENHOUSE.

I dont understand your acquiescence, to the point. SO WHAT? NO ONE CARES about what flies in other countries. Some other countries are disarmed and have complete LOCKDOWNS. What does that matter to this case?

Forgive me, I dont think you've ever been in a situation where you might have to shoot someone if you had the means.... I have. First when I was 16 and robbed at gunpoint in my poor hick rural town. Damn it if I didnt wish I had a gun then.

In the Marines... I was involved in some terrible things.... Including what you labels as so called "murder".... sadly life isn't black and white like you have presented on the internet. That sort of thing weighs on you.

Buy what you'd like. I just doubt your life experiences beyond the comfy world I am assuming you are operating in. I say that with respect... assuming you're not a glowie.... ;)
 

02Hero

 
Banned
Other Christian
I'll bite since you engaged me and you say youre not an American.

Mankind has always designed tools for a myriad of things. You are implying the motive of murder for their use. I dont. I've shot hogs/deer/other varmits with an AR 15. Having been in the Marines... people are something that have also been shot at with said tools.

I carry guns everywhere I go. I assume everyone I interact with does so also... whether its random crackhead at a gas station, my ex wife, or the pizza guy delivering at my doorstep. Doesnt bother me for a second.

You are missing the point about Hollywood. Culturally its a part of being an American. You dont get that... just like I dont get a lunch time siesta in Mexico, or a 5 x daily prayer routine in Saudi Arabia. The point is that there are cultural realities that manifest in behavior. You may state that they are immoral/disagreeable for your tastes/culture/background... BUT EVEN SO ITS IRRELEVANT TO KYLE RITTENHOUSE.

I dont understand your acquiescence, to the point. SO WHAT? NO ONE CARES about what flies in other countries. Some other countries are disarmed and have complete LOCKDOWNS. What does that matter to this case?

Forgive me, I dont think you've ever been in a situation where you might have to shoot someone if you had the means.... I have. First when I was 16 and robbed at gunpoint in my poor hick rural town. Damn it if I didnt wish I had a gun then.

In the Marines... I was involved in some terrible things.... Including what you labels as so called "murder".... sadly life isn't black and white like you have presented on the internet. That sort of thing weighs on you.

Buy what you'd like. I just doubt your life experiences beyond the comfy world I am assuming you are operating in. I say that with respect... assuming you're not a glowie.... ;)

If everybody uses a gun then you have to as well. That is the problem I think some people have with legal gun ownership. Even mentally ill people carry guns. LOL You have to walk around being careful someones feelings are not getting hurt or you get a bullet to the face. Instead of a fistfight.

The same problem is in Europe with the drill rap scene. Kids are carrying machetes and big knives and kill each other with them. If I was in that scene I would also carry a weapon to defend myself.

Personally I would carry a gun in the USA as well for my own protection. No doubt.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
Yeah, I'm not trying to divert anything, but people keep engaging me over a pretty innocuous (and objectively true) comment I made in a long post about the Rittenhouse case. Sorry, I also find it hard not to bite, and being as get2choppaaa is the only one who has presented any sort of argument which isn't tangential/fallacious/mildly insulting, I find it particularly difficult not to reply. I think I've stated clearly on a number of occasions that I get it. I get the 2nd amendment and the spirit it was written in. I get that it's dog eat dog out there. If i'd been mugged at gunpoint (I almost have actually) then I'd probably wish I had a gun too and I may have been happy to use it in such a situation, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would be even better if those guys didn't have guns in the first place, and it would be even better if soldiers weren't put in those situations where they had to do terrible things. In my opinion, the soldiers are often the biggest victims of war. And it's a circle of violence which requires consent on all sides to continue. If you're happy to allow that to continue, then maybe you're just as indoctrinated by the system as those you rally against. But I understand, it's not easy to escape.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do and some people deserve everything they get, but someone did say something once, that I believe. It escapes me now, but it was something like, thou shall not... thou shall not... thou shall not...

no, it's gone. nevermind. it'll come back to me. Maybe someone here can remember it.

Nice verse about the wolf and the lamb, by the way. Would be nicer if anyone here believed it.
 

Truth

Pigeon
Agnostic
I’ve already thought about it. Please explain how you would accomplish this without using guns yourself to force people to do it.

Besides. Historically disarmament is a precursor to genocide.
Love. Education. Patience.

You want me to do it alone or are you willing to help out?
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Pelican
Catholic
Gold Member
Yes, they are an equalizer, but only in the same way that not having them at all would be.

Nonsense. I plan to have my daughter learn BJJ and other martial arts when she's old enough, so that she's best equipped to defend herself if I am not around to do so. But no matter how much she trains I don't have any delusion that she'll have much chance of defending herself against a 250 lb psycho or crackhead intent on harming her, so I'm also going to teach her to shoot when she's old enough. Likewise I'm a decently big guy and train BJJ regularly (and muay Thai less regularly), I'm confident I could defend myself against the majority of guys out there in a 1 on 1 unarmed fair fight, but "the majority" is still far from "all" not to mention I have zero expectation that if I'm ever forced to defend myself or my family against an attacker it would be 1 on 1 or unarmed or fair, so I carry a gun and train with it (not as often as I should) too.


“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

  • March 7, 2016
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill,
USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
 

KoolDoon

 
Banned
Protestant
Nonsense. I plan to have my daughter learn BJJ and other martial arts when she's old enough, so that she's best equipped to defend herself if I am not around to do so. But no matter how much she trains I don't have any delusion that she'll have much chance of defending herself against a 250 lb psycho or crackhead intent on harming her, so I'm also going to teach her to shoot when she's old enough. Likewise I'm a decently big guy and train BJJ regularly (and muay Thai less regularly), I'm confident I could defend myself against the majority of guys out there in a 1 on 1 unarmed fair fight, but "the majority" is still far from "all" not to mention I have zero expectation that if I'm ever forced to defend myself or my family against an attacker it would be 1 on 1 or unarmed or fair, so I carry a gun and train with it (not as often as I should) too.


“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

  • March 7, 2016
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill,
USMC (Ret.)
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Never fight fair with a stranger. Many people getting manslaughtered could have avoided it by not expecting the other person to be "fair".
 

Elipe

Pelican
Protestant
Kyle is enjoying his stardom perhaps too much. In a new interview with Elijah Schaffer he brags he got his virginity taken. I don't think he's married.
I'm sorry you couldn't have your perfect chiseled-jaw Christian soldier decked out in Deus Vult gear. When Christians abandon the battlefield without so much as a whimper, these are the men that step in.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Orthodox
I'm sorry you couldn't have your perfect chiseled-jaw Christian soldier decked out in Deus Vult gear. When Christians abandon the battlefield without so much as a whimper, these are the men that step in.
I still don't get why anyone is expecting him to be some warrior monk chad.

He's an 18 year old kid. It's logical he's going to be doing the things 90 percent of 18 year olds would do.
 

fiasco360

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I don't know but my "spidey sense" is tingling with this now. Seems too comfortable and convenient to distract us all.

Then again at this point - I'm convinced half of the figures and events we witness are CIA psyops. Hard to separate truth from lies in this world now.
 

Cuchulainn2016

Woodpecker
Yeah, I'm not trying to divert anything, but people keep engaging me over a pretty innocuous (and objectively true) comment I made in a long post about the Rittenhouse case. Sorry, I also find it hard not to bite, and being as get2choppaaa is the only one who has presented any sort of argument which isn't tangential/fallacious/mildly insulting, I find it particularly difficult not to reply. I think I've stated clearly on a number of occasions that I get it. I get the 2nd amendment and the spirit it was written in. I get that it's dog eat dog out there. If i'd been mugged at gunpoint (I almost have actually) then I'd probably wish I had a gun too and I may have been happy to use it in such a situation, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would be even better if those guys didn't have guns in the first place, and it would be even better if soldiers weren't put in those situations where they had to do terrible things. In my opinion, the soldiers are often the biggest victims of war. And it's a circle of violence which requires consent on all sides to continue. If you're happy to allow that to continue, then maybe you're just as indoctrinated by the system as those you rally against. But I understand, it's not easy to escape.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do and some people deserve everything they get, but someone did say something once, that I believe. It escapes me now, but it was something like, thou shall not... thou shall not... thou shall not...

no, it's gone. nevermind. it'll come back to me. Maybe someone here can remember it.

Nice verse about the wolf and the lamb, by the way. Would be nicer if anyone here believed it.
Firstly, writing a message in an "intelligent" way, in other words trying to sound as if you are educated and intelligent generally has the opposite effect on actual intelligent people who can see through it. Its a very effeminate manner of discourse.

Secondly, the thing you are searching for is "Thou shalt not kill". Generally accepted to be "thou shalt not murder another human being", not "thou shalt not defend oneself from a child rapist, a beater of women and a thief determined to kill thou".

Thirdly, if you havent participated in combat, your opinion of soldiers, their victimhood and war, has zero value.

Finally, it is not a cycle of violence which requires the consent of all to continue. The opposite is true, the violence will continue as long as criminals have the ability to turn anything into a deadly weapon, the consent of the victim is not required. The consent of all would be required to stop the violence.
 
Top