I'm just showing you the type of person who "protects his community". Hey I'm sure you've checked the background of people you don't like to see if them dying was justified right? I have another question for you. If it was a Proud Boys group that started a fire or another example, the Bundy ranch people pointing firearms at law enforcement officers in a stand off, would Kyle fight against them? My question is asking basically: Was Rittenhouse motivated by a sincere desire to "help his community", or rather he just wanted to be pitted against his ideological enemies? Now we have prior history to suggest the later. His classmates stated how he would wear political paraphernalia like Trump gear with a motivation to "own the libs" and got really aggressive and confrontational when someone spoke I'll of Trump Infront of him and gave threats of physical violence. Again, his classmates long before the Kenosha incident thought he would be "the next school shooter".
He's either trolling or is too dumb to understand the difference between being able to physically handle a firearm which you can train a monkey to do and being mentally responsible enough to own a firearm. It's the same with cars. Pretty much every 13 year old is physically capable of driving a car. Are they mentally matured enough to?
I'm not diumb, I just believe in doing whatever it takes to preserve law and order and deter criminal activity. I dont have a problem with what happened in the Rittenhouse case and wish there were 10,000 more like him where the rioting/looting is going on. If there were I bet you would see alot less rioting and looting.
You keep on repeating the same phrase and not addressing the points raised. Sign that maybe you just are a troll? I'm going to assume from now on you don't really believe in half the crap you type.
Pedophilia. You are considered a grown adult, a young man when you’re 19. The average age of a soldier that served in Vietnam was 19. He’s a dead POS convicted child rapist. The age gap is 10 years between him and the youngest boy, he was 19 and the boy was 9, not the bullshiet haft truth that fdchowd0311 is peddling.
And you are without morals for peddling lies and half truth about the age gap between dead convicted child rapist and his victims.
Ya I read a source that just mentioned 15 but the Snopes article on his criminal record does state 9-11 and I trust that source. So ya, he's a creep. Like I said before, I don't have sympathy for him.
If people don’t want police and police enforcement This is what you get You get riots, looting and shooting
And if you don’t have a moral compass you support people who riot loot and shoot just for their votes. Biden is a senile sellout jackass. He’s doing nothing but fanning the flames. The jury got it right
Don't know if you follow Larry Lawton on YouTube, but he was in prison 12 years. Interesting channel. He flat out says pedos don't last in prison. I had a DWI in 2003 (which I called the police myself, but that's another story) and decided to do a week in County rather than all the probation stuff. Even in that week, folks in there were asking for the pedophile cases to identify who they were. I even saw a Forensic File where a guy murdered a random woman in her house so he could go in as a murderer rather than a pedophile.
I do watch him every now and then. That is one hard man, I’m glad that he turned his life around and using his gifts for good. And yeah, pedos don’t last in prison. There are honor amongst thieves and the prisoners, they themselves have children too, and that is one thing you don’t do to a child.
Nothing, but I suspect they’re trying to tie this into gun violence and somehow forcing us to acquiesce so they can disarm us.
I would ask you to start stating things that are true if you wish to debate with me - I simply don't have time for nonsense like this anymore. First of all, the 2nd Amendment isn't a law. It's an Amendment to the constitution. Laws are passed by legislative bodies. Let me put you in a scenario since you seem to like to deal in them. If a man brings a gun to a crowded place and pulls it out and starts pointing it at people, are the people allowed to defend themselves? If the answer is yes, and someone in that crowd pulls a gun out in self-defense, then, is not the man with the gun, who is merely having his gun out as a show to protect himself, allowed to then see the other man pulling his gun out as a threat, and thereby shoot him? This is where your whole - let's have everyone have guns starts to make no sense. Because a gun is so threatening that it quickly escalates things to lethal violence even if both sides are acting in self-defense. If you are telling me that is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, then yeah, it's stupid.
