I think this is the part that most people are missing in the argument here as well. Yeah maybe he can legally do what he did. But for a lot of people heading to a riot with an open carry loaded firearm represents needless escalation and with it a creation of the conditions the undermine the call of self-defense.
The reality is the law allows it and so it's legally okay to do. But it appears that many people have a moral issue with it and the law is out of step with those societal expectations and norms. It would be interesting to know in that state what the polling is on open carry laws. Many of these gun laws are pushed by vocal minority opinions and not the opinion of the populace at large.
if someone expresses a desire to kill you, lays in wait for you, tries to take your gun, and then chases you when you flee (still trying to take your gun) I'm betting that even in the PRC you can defend yourself with lethal force.
maybe those people have been fed a false narrative about the relationship between firearms and violent crimes, and those people are out of step with the reality version of societal expectations and norms.
provide evidence that firearm laws are a minority opinion from a vocal group, and not vice-versa.
As I previously stated, case law disagrees. Gerald Stanley immediately comes to mind. Guilty of improper storage, not guilty for killing a guy sitting in a car with an errant bullet. The dude who went looking for and then killed the guy in his garage also springs to mind, but if I
remember right he's being appealed to the Supreme Court.
That's obviously subjective but very possible. Personally, that hasn't been my experience when it comes up wothnother Canadians, but again that's subjective.
The logic you're trying to apply flies out the window when the city is being torched.
What's the law on burning down a city ? And a vocal minority to the 2nd ammendment ? Not the 50th.... the 2nd. Of all things added to the constitution the 2nd after freedom of speech is freedom to bear arms... I find it ironic the fore founders said, sure speak your mind and then said but be wary of what you say....
M
member 1013
Guest
Gerald Stanley was on his own property, the guys were attempting to rob him and his gun most likely misfired.
Not a similar situation
I work in Toronto. Most Canadians are liberal yuppiesnlike my coworkers, in cities like Vancouver and MTL. Even Calgary is more liberal than you probably think.
As I said, it's subjective and someone's environment will color their view. Ultimately I'd rather not fite over it because it's really not that important to me and I'd rather be frens.
M
member 1013
Guest
We will always be friends and I agree it’s a dumb hypothetical and we’re both laymen with no actual clue about the intricacies of these laws. I’m sorry. We’re both stubborn.
Little Middle East is Calgary. I live a short distance from there and my Daughter goes to college there
Our firearms laws are so fucked you won't get 2 rcmp or 2 judges to be able to interpret them the same.
Certainly suspicious to be a pseudo-seizure given the convenient timing, but can’t say for sure based on the videoi've never seen anyone roll on their back and straight crack their head with intent like that, or flop one leg straight up.
i'm not an expert, but my uncle gets seizures from brain trauma, my niece has diabetic seizures (and I've seen several others), my oldest used to get fibrial seizures.
everything about that looks staged. She hits her head until someone puts their hand on it, then she never jerks her head straight back again.
that's not how involuntary muscle spasms work.@Splinty, @Shinkicker,
@SC MMA MD?
somebody tell me this lady is legit.
yes
Can you give me the cliffs about why he was there, armed?
I think he's a paramedic, right?
We're growing as people.
It's illegal. Sooooo???
I don't understand this. There are not 50 amendments.
But they did. And they said similar things around a lot of topics. They aren't perfect and they aren't holy infallible god's. Just as all men are created equal was not exactly enforced as all men...
Anyways the supreme court has repeatedly confirmed that speech is limited including creating harmful dangerous situations with said speech.
Open carry is not universal. It is constitutional to limit open carry.
But all of this is a side bar to what I posted.
Being within the right to do something doesn't mean always morally right or within the expectations of the village.
If a majority of people in that state or city do not support Kyle Rittenhouse right to open carry a firearm into a riot (a right that is not granted everywhere even in the United States) then it highlights why people are so unhappy with the actions, case, and result.
lol this lars and beard debate
couple of jimmy rustlers I say
couple of jimmy rustlers I say
As the resident libertarian, I find it somewhat funny that your go to is the idea that people can't be trusted in their opinions and are easily manipulated idiots.
Maybe people just disagree with you and many think it's unhelpful and reckless to drive to a riot with an open carry ar15.
In this case even the facts support the open carry ar15 as the reason Rosenbaum singled out Rittenhouse as a rival and threat as well as the potential to lose said ar15 as justification to shoot Rosenbaum.
As for minority opinions driving gun laws,
It's true here and elsewhere.
it's also continually true when looking at federal polls asking if we should have "more" or "less" gun laws where the consensus is now the highest since 1992 awb that we need more gun control, all while we continually move to less.
