Jump to content

Vigilante Justice


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The DA didn’t charge bye-cep, as he thought he was stopping an active shooter.

what Kyle was, or wasn’t, doesn’t matter. Killing him would have been just as justifiable as Kyle killing them. 
 

so, nice law you have there Wisconsin.

(before @Burning Manpukes on the above, I’ll remind him, again, that bye-cep wasn’t charged. If I was king he’d get a “being a dumbass and carrying at a disturbance” at minimum. Yeah, I know that’s not a law, I said I was King.)

More like "bye-bye bicep"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Nice avoidance of the question. Yes please, lets' play.  Show me the video part where he "racked" his AR-15?  Simple task......  I'll wait.

STRAW MAN ALERT

I never claimed there was photo or video footage. But one TV guy said the sound of it was caught on audio, and little Kyle testified to, ahem, special fondling, to "examining" his weapon, at a very curious time. 

While hiding behind minutia of your own choosing, you have avoided discussion with me re: the vigilante posture of Kyle Dipshit Rittenhouse.

And  I omitted another pertinent bullet point: I left the part out about

  • the white supremecy hand signal, in a bar, with his mother and a camera taking it all in, with some white supremecy faction, soon after his release on bond.
  • Why did Kyle claim to be "examining" his battle gun (as opposed to re-racking it)... right when Gaige's hands were raised?
  • Why did Kyle respond to a Facebook group which planned to confront progressive protestors?
  • Why did Kyle want to shoot at looters, with his AW, in front of witnesses, from a parked car?
  • Why the aggressive posture as he patrolled with his precious?

 

Let me sum it up. Here we have the uninformed POS element of society, armed with AW's, and on the loose, outdoors. And this is not Heller... it is where you soon took Heller.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You seem abusive today, while sorting the gory details. Meanwhile, gun mayhem sucks, and violence brings more violence. 

Asking you to backup your statement is now abusive???  Should be fairly simple joe.....  the video is there for all to see.  Where did he "rack" his AR-15?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

The DA didn’t charge bye-cep, as he thought he was stopping an active shooter.

what Kyle was, or wasn’t, doesn’t matter. Killing him would have been just as justifiable as Kyle killing them. 
 

so, nice law you have there Wisconsin.

(before @Burning Manpukes on the above, I’ll remind him, again, that bye-cep wasn’t charged. If I was king he’d get a “being a dumbass and carrying at a disturbance” at minimum. Yeah, I know that’s not a law, I said I was King.)

No, for the last fucking time, that is a lie.  Bicep-less dumbass killing KR would NOT be just as justifiable as KR killing them.  You cannot initiate the attack and then claim self defense.  You cannot chase someone down and then claim Self-Defense.  You cannot corner someone, point at gun at them and then claim self defense. 

Did you not pay attention to the AA trial????  THAT^^ was the very premise the AA prosecutors won on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let me sum it up. I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion here.  I'm just rambling about nothing.  It's nothing but authentic frontier gibberish.  Also, I think I just shit my pants.  Mommie, help!

Here we have the uninformed POS element of society, armed with AW's, and on the loose, outdoors. And this is not Heller... it is where you soon took Heller.

Edited for accuracy and succinctness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Edited for accuracy and succinctness.

Edited, as a bully's denial.

Kyle was a cheap, rock-and-roll, vigilante action figure. :rolleyes: Just not culturally desirable, sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

The DA didn’t charge bye-cep, as he thought he was stopping an active shooter.

what Kyle was, or wasn’t, doesn’t matter. Killing him would have been just as justifiable as Kyle killing them. 
 

so, nice law you have there Wisconsin.

(before @Burning Manpukes on the above, I’ll remind him, again, that bye-cep wasn’t charged. If I was king he’d get a “being a dumbass and carrying at a disturbance” at minimum. Yeah, I know that’s not a law, I said I was King.)

To follow up on the why wasn't he charged question..... and if he's not charged, he must therefore be innocent.  1st of all, I've already answered that - 1) I believe he either got immunity from the DA for testifying and 2) charging him now after the debacle the prosecutor just did would not go over well and destroy any credibility of their original argument that Grosskuntz was a victim. 

2nd of all - that sounds amazingly like the line of argument from Dog that you all went batshit over regarding scooter libby or whoever the fuck it was that got your panties in a wad.  Wasn't his contention that no charges meant innocent???  Trump and his cabal has not been arrested or charged for the 1/6 stuff - so by your logic they are innocent.  Cheney and Bush were never charged with war crimes, so they must be in the clear too.  There are any number of people who have not been charged with crimes when we all know they are evil fucking shits.  Does that mean that the mobsters who go into protective custody are innocent of murder and racketeering if they don't get arrested and charged?  By your stoopid logic, yes.  It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.  And the Kenosha DA was singularly inept at proving that claims of SD by KR was bogus.  So what makes you think he wants to go 0 for 2 with bicep-less???

Think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Edited, as a bully's denial.

Kyle was a cheap, rock-and-roll, vigilante action figure. :rolleyes: Just not culturally desirable, sorry.

So I take that as a "NO, I'm not going to answer your simple question to backup my stoopid claim".  Seriously, just say that upfront joe, and save us all the hassle of trying to get you to backup your BS.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No, for the last fucking time, that is a lie.  Bicep-less dumbass killing KR would NOT be just as justifiable as KR killing them.  You cannot initiate the attack and then claim self defense.  You cannot chase someone down and then claim Self-Defense.  You cannot corner someone, point at gun at them and then claim self defense. 

Did you not pay attention to the AA trial????  THAT^^ was the very premise the AA prosecutors won on.

Then why wasn’t he charged?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

To follow up on the why wasn't he charged question..... and if he's not charged, he must therefore be innocent.  1st of all, I've already answered that - 1) I believe he either got immunity from the DA for testifying and 2) charging him now after the debacle the prosecutor just did would not go over well and destroy any credibility of their original argument that Grosskuntz was a victim. 

2nd of all - that sounds amazingly like the line of argument from Dog that you all went batshit over regarding scooter libby or whoever the fuck it was that got your panties in a wad.  Wasn't his contention that no charges meant innocent???  Trump and his cabal has not been arrested or charged for the 1/6 stuff - so by your logic they are innocent.  Cheney and Bush were never charged with war crimes, so they must be in the clear too.  There are any number of people who have not been charged with crimes when we all know they are evil fucking shits.  Does that mean that the mobsters who go into protective custody are innocent of murder and racketeering if they don't get arrested and charged?  By your stoopid logic, yes.  It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.  And the Kenosha DA was singularly inept at proving that claims of SD by KR was bogus.  So what makes you think he wants to go 0 for 2 with bicep-less???

Think about it.

Was bye-cep wrong to be packing heat? Duh. As wrong as Kyle. He’s no better, and no worse. But if you think you’re stopping a shooter, well, the DA will test to see if that’s reasonable (it was in this case) and the law is pretty clear.

besides, i thought we wanted folks with guns to protect us?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Earlier in the thread when I confronted jocal about the moment in question I made it easy and used the term rack-cycle to make it clear semantics were not at play. I assume you read it too?

I even included a road map to find the answer as the left wing echo chambers don't provide factual details there.

Yet here we are.

Actually, you nor any of your posts weren't even a factor - I was commenting on a quoted comment by The Merc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Was bye-cep wrong to be packing heat? Duh. As wrong as Kyle. He’s no better, and no worse.

So illegally possessing a gun is no better nor worse than legally possessing one? I'm going to remember that. I think it might come in handy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So I take that as a "NO, I'm not going to answer your simple question to backup my stoopid claim".  Seriously, just say that upfront joe, and save us all the hassle of trying to get you to backup your BS.  

Joe hasn't had anything new to say in years. He's a one-note samba.

Here's the answer to Chicago and all the other shitheel places where gang bangers rule. 

What is the NFAC? An all-Black group arming itself and demanding change -  CNN

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

So illegally possessing a gun is no better nor worse than legally possessing one? I'm going to remember that. I think it might come in handy.

If you can get the right judge in Wisconsin, all those charges get tossed out.

Not so sure about other places

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

So illegally possessing a gun is no better nor worse than legally possessing one? I'm going to remember that. I think it might come in handy.

Even the judge said the statute was unclear, but you be you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

Joe hasn't had anything new to say in years. He's a one-note samba.

Here's the answer to Chicago and all the other shitheel places where gang bangers rule. 

What is the NFAC? An all-Black group arming itself and demanding change -  CNN

Bring on the militia!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So I take that as a "NO, I'm not going to answer your simple question to backup my stoopid claim".  Seriously, just say that upfront joe, and save us all the hassle of trying to get you to backup your BS.  

Please cool it with the fluff, and get on track. This discussion (and thread) are about vigilante behavior, if any. This thread and discussion are not about a gun that was racked, or not racked. 

 

When the Kyle thing happened, I found myself wondering how far you, JBSF, would take it. How long you would work it? How far you would push it? Just how high would your high horse be, in the CarSource car lots, of Kenosha WI?

Here we are, MUCH later, long after I let you hold court, when I show up to discuss the subject. For some reason, you did a hollow bully job on me, sans intelligent discussion of vigilante behavior. 

 

Hmmm. This joker employed pure, crude, vigilante cretinism, armed with a battle rifle, offering the armed social values of a white supremecist group....and blindly, you bought into, and defended, his deplorable AW bits...while bullying. Let's play some more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Even the judge said the statute was unclear, but you be you.

I think Tom is referring to Lefty's pistol. It's very clear is Lefty's handgun permit had expired. He testified to that under oath. Why did he not face charges for that? I think the answer is clear and Jeff is correct  upthread. The prosecutor needed his star witness to look like a victim. That's hard to accomplish if Lefty has 1 or 2 firearm charges against him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, F_L said:

I think Tom is referring to Lefty's pistol. It's very clear is Lefty's handgun permit had expired. He testified to that under oath. Why did he not face charges for that? I think the answer is clear and Jeff is correct  upthread. The prosecutor needed his star witness to look like a victim. That's hard to accomplish if Lefty has 1 or 2 firearm charges against him.

They dropped all the weapons charges against Kyle, too.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, F_L said:

I think Tom is referring to Lefty's pistol.

Tom is celebrating lawlessness, as part of a pattern. Armed lawlessness. Mr. Dogballs is relating his intent, to violate the terms of Heller. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Joe hasn't had anything new to say in years. He's a one-note samba.

What a ride.

I was uninformed as I began my challenge of the local gun guys. They had beaten me up all thru 2012, and I had retired from that fight, graciously and openly. I got out when the gettin' was good. It was December by then.

Sandy Hook happened about a week later. I was pissed. Indecided to inform myself, because MOST of the arguments I had heard sounded sketchy to me.

Many anarchists had said if they saw empirical evidence of xyz, they would change their opinions about the benefit of gunz.

In early 2013 I discovered Dr. David Hemenway, and his work. With Boothy howling louder than a twelve guage, all day, I won my first argument, about stranger danger. The research clearly showed that 85% of the gun casualties happened within families, and acquaintances. Jeff told Wofsey that he, Jeff, would change his tune if I was right. @Burning Man

2013-2014 AD  To buy time, while I read stuff, I simply scrounged for peer-reviewed research, and kept presenting it, relentlessly. Boothy and Jeffie screamed that no one cared, but attrition happened. Intelligent men entered into discussions, and I was on the map...albeit with much loud white noise from Boothy. These studies appeared on SAILING ANARCHY before they appeared in court. The general lack of research, which had been much-manipulated in court and in the media, emerged into the empirical basis for some decent gun laws.

2014 and 2015  Social Science conclusions presented, in about seven fields...(while I read and organized stuff). Doctors and Lawyers had fought loose gun restrictions for 30 years; National Org Of Women found guns were agents of femicide; Psychologists opposed to guns, LE facing AW's with concern, etc.

2016  Patterns in the Courts. (State gun restrictions being allowed, based on Heller. Highland Park AW Ban. Heller II and III nixed AW's & allowed registration in DC. )

2017 & 2018  Beaucoup peer-reviewed history was presented, by myself; The Standard Model of the Second Amendment was beautifully debunked. My finest hour was the discovery of the law brief of 23 pissed-off historians, in the 2010 McDonald case. They had united in alarm after the Heller case had been based on embarrassing and terrible history, written by a cadre of Libertarians, for a fee paid by the Chairman of CATO, Robert Levy. 

The yeoman of the vetted work, widely quoted by the PhD's, was one Patrick J. Charles, enforcing the 1983 work of Lois Schwoerer. Mr. Charles had an MO of presenting what the Standard Model writers have claimed, by presenting their own sources... and then expanding upon the context of their sources. On the key issues, I was able to present a link to each Libertarian, the page number, the direct quote...then the context, with other sources, authors, and info which had been ignored. I MET NO CHALLENGERS except bpm57. 

Yo, BC, playing with a peer-reviewed hand is sweet. And Dogballs @Seriatim Tomwill not play Standard Model with me. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

They dropped all the weapons charges against Kyle, too.

- DSK

Bye Cep violated the law because he was carrying a concealed weapon after his permit was revoked for carrying it while intoxicated.  

Kyle didn't violate any gun laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Joe hasn't had anything new to say in years. He's a one-note samba.

Here's the answer to Chicago and all the other shitheel places where gang bangers rule. 

What is the NFAC? An all-Black group arming itself and demanding change -  CNN

I totally agree.  You'd think that if BL really M'd, they'd be patrolling those gang infested neighborhoods. 

As an aside, I've said it before.... I'd be really ok if those gangs would just confine their drug war to each other and attrite themselves out of existence.  But they keep having collateral damage incidents.  

I sorta joke about the "Militia of Color" above patrolling the streets.  That would be full on vigilantism, and I'm not a fan.  However, if I were king for a day - I would send in Delta and the SEALs covertly to do some targeted killin' in some of these hoods in the wee hours of the morning because it's pretty obvious that the Po-LEECE are not getting the job done.  I would use Gen. Dave's and Gen. Stan's blueprint for COIN and go in an take and hold these neighborhoods and regain the trust of the good folks who are too skeeerd to rat them out.  I'd also put a cordon around a neighborhood and do house to house searches to root out all the weapons caches.  Because as King - I wouldn't let that pesky 4A get in the way.  Or the 3rd and 5th for that matter.

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Here we are, MUCH later, long after I let you hold court, when I show up to discuss the subject.

When you "LET" me hold court.......... 

hahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Dude, stop it!  You're killin me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

When you "LET" me hold court.......... 

That's right. And hold court, you did. But in no way did I dumb it down, by bringing out your (poor content-type) )behavior, which you showed today, in a serial pattern. Step it up. 

 

Let's get to the point, mate. Where did you weigh in, on a scale of one to ten, on whether  Kyle's Special Adventure was vigilante behavior? One is Mother Teresa, Ten is a junkyard dog. Your turn.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2021 at 1:35 PM, hobie1616 said:

Vigilante justice and the end of America

Two recent vigilante killing trials, one in Georgia, the other in Wisconsin, have exposed a terrifying trend of armed citizens who, in the name of justice, only make America less safe and portend a future of fear, intimidation and increasing violence.

They also raise a question that haunts me: How the hell did we get here? When did we start permitting Americans to take the law into their own hands?

In the first trial, teen shooter Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murdering two men he shot to death during a racial-justice protest in Kenosha, Wis. in August 2020. Rittenhouse shot a third man as well, but he survived. Now 18, Rittenhouse had left his home in Illinois and gone to the protest with an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle and a medical kit — allegedly to help keep the peace.

Defense lawyers made a convincing-enough case that jurors found that Rittenhouse met the legal definition of self-defense. Though reactions to the verdict have varied, almost everyone would agree that Rittenhouse had no business wielding a weapon of such deadly force. Who would think to do such a thing?

Oh, lots of people, especially the Young Guns in our country who’ve marinated in tough talk and rough politics for most of their lives.

In Georgia, jury deliberations began Tuesday in the trial of three men accused of murdering 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, for basically Jogging While Black. Somewhat like Rittenhouse, the three men were armed, they said, because of recent burglaries in their community and they thought Arbery looked like he could be the culprit. In a word, they hunted Arbery — and they killed him.

It seems unlikely that any jury would let the three defendants off given the evidence and a superbly -delivered prosecution by attorney Linda Dunikoski. But even setting aside the presumed verdict, we’re again faced with armed goons who killed an innocent man for no reason or cause. Even the shooter, Travis McMichael, admitted during his testimony that Arbery posed no threat.

More trials for similar behavior are, unfortunately, inevitable in our hyped-up, trigger-happy, madder-than-hell country. It’s getting harder to pinpoint what everyone is so angry about — an extended pandemic, inflation, supply-chain problems, our politics — but a certain percentage of disgruntled people seem ready to go to war.

This is not normal — or, for a people, sustainable. If once we fought a Civil War to end slavery, today we’ll fight over just about any little provocation. Cut off in traffic? Shoot the bastard. I am not joking: Between June 2020 and May 2021, an average of 42 people per month were killed or wounded in road-rage shootings, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organization. Other local officials report that disagreements that were once routinely settled with words or at worst police intervention, now often end in violence.

How did we come unglued?

The commonplace nature of firearms is a factor. Whereas it was once rare to see people walking around with a gun, except in hunting or rural settings, the United States now boasts 44 states that allow people to openly carry a weapon in public, though states vary on restrictions. Thus, last year during the Portland, Ore. riots, we saw would-be combatants stalking around with their long guns. In Brunswick, Ga., during the trial of Travis McMichael, his father, Gregory, and neighbor William Bryan, the new Black Panthers walked along downtown sidewalks carrying rifles. I don’t necessarily worry such displays of firepower mean someone is going to start shooting, but what else are we to infer?

In common law, going back centuries, there has been a long tradition against carrying weapons in a manner that bred fears among the public. What has happened to that way of thinking?

Something. What we see today has been a long time coming, perhaps beneath our notice. I compare the phenomenon to being so mesmerized by the sight of a far-off tidal wave that it paralyzes nearly until the wall of water is upon us.

People who were once political rivals now talk about each other as if they are enemies. We see ever-growing numbers of extremists on the right, where white supremacists have been validated by a former president of the United States. They also feel vindicated by Rittenhouse’s verdict and see him as a hero, just as those men down in Georgia likely see themselves.

With each stance of an armed vigilante, with each bullet he loads and locks into some gun’s chamber, we lose a bit more of our security and, therefore, our freedom. The truth is, a vigilante who attempts to take justice into his own hands is usually a coward with an inflated ego used as a beard to conceal his deficiencies.

The challenge for the rest of us is to resist these posers and demand real justice lest we become victims of our own inertia.

Blah blah blah. I hate to ruin your little theory, but most of us righties do NOT support KR. You gobble up that leftie bullshit because it makes you feel better. I hate to tell you this, but all you’re doing is regurgitating media bullshit without bothering to even ask what the people you talk shit about actually think. Idiots like you are why things are getting so nasty. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Blah blah blah. I hate to ruin your little theory, but most of us righties do NOT support KR. You gobble up that leftie bullshit because it makes you feel better. I hate to tell you this, but all you’re doing is regurgitating media bullshit without bothering to even ask what the people you talk shit about actually think. Idiots like you are why things are getting so nasty. 

Yeah, that ... and the shootings.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Joe hasn't had anything new to say in years. He's a one-note samba.

Here's the answer to Chicago and all the other shitheel places where gang bangers rule. 

What is the NFAC? An all-Black group arming itself and demanding change -  CNN

That would be the old Black Panthers. Bobby and company formed it to be a police force because the nearly all white Oakland PD of the 60s simply refused to respond to calls in black neighborhoods. They came when black people started sporting heat though..big time, so did J Edgar's COINTELPRO assassins, and Gov Reagan with new draconian CA gun laws. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, F_L said:

I think Tom is referring to Lefty's pistol. It's very clear is Lefty's handgun permit had expired. He testified to that under oath. Why did he not face charges for that? I think the answer is clear and Jeff is correct  upthread. The prosecutor needed his star witness to look like a victim. That's hard to accomplish if Lefty has 1 or 2 firearm charges against him.

Tom should chime in now and correct you that the gun, itself, wasn’t illegal. Cause guns have rights, you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Why exactly do you think we support the shootings?  

It's not that I think you support shootings, it's that there are so many. Pisses people off, makes them edgy, untrustful. Look at the way Republican Congressional baseball team acted a couple of years ago.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mark K said:

That would be the old Black Panthers. Bobby and company formed it to be a police force because the nearly all white Oakland PD of the 60s simply refused to respond to calls in black neighborhoods. They came when black people started sporting heat though..big time, so did J Edgar's COINTELPRO assassins, and Gov Reagan with new draconian CA gun laws. 

I recall. I was there. But it's NFAC --- Not Fucking Around Coalition ... circa right now. This would help the situation in Chicago -- buncha grown up armed people who aren't afraid of gangbangers. Door to door baby. Flood the zone,

If Whites do it it's is genocide. Blacks? Discipline ... and long overdue. 

"... area ... Leader ship needed in the Chicago area ... Chicago area ... "

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I recall. I was there. But it's NFAC --- Not Fucking Around Coalition ... circa right now. This would help the situation in Chicago -- buncha grown up armed people who aren't afraid of gangbangers. Door to door baby. Flood the zone,

If Whites do it it's is genocide. Blacks? Discipline ... and long overdue. 

"... area ... Leader ship needed in the Chicago area ... Chicago area ... "

It's an unfortunate but ultimately unavoidable side effect of the end of red-lining that educated and comparatively middle class blacks could and did leave the neighborhoods in deep urban places like Chicago, leaving the drug trade as the one lucrative occupation for young men. It's an entirely different situation. 

  The NFAC is rural-southern based. Surrounded by people who did Charlottesville. It seems an entirely different message, but very much like that of the ones who ruined the BP with militarization. Separatists. They too will be ruined if they lack discipline.  

 Oakland's PD was integrated with people from the hood, and the result was the Rough Riders. Much less than half of them were caught, and the caught ones served their time like men and not rats. The ones who weren't caught benefitted from the sacrifice and a message being sent and received. Once people felt they could talk to the police privately and it would stay private, and that police would do something, it was no longer required that people get taken down so publicly. Everybody knew there were bad-asses who gave a shit in town now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

That's right. And hold court, you did. But in no way did I dumb it down, by bringing out your (poor content-type) )behavior, which you showed today, in a serial pattern. Step it up. 

 

Let's get to the point, mate. Where did you weigh in, on a scale of one to ten, on whether  Kyle's Special Adventure was vigilante behavior? One is Mother Teresa, Ten is a junkyard dog. Your turn.

 

No sorry, it's still YOUR turn.  Answer my question first....  you brought up the AR-15 "racking".  I'm just asking if you could tell me where in the video it happened.  How hard is that?  

Answer that and I'll be more than happy to reciprocate.  And my answer will be direct and to the point and won't require pulling teeth to get it.  Quid pro quo, Clarice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No sorry, it's still YOUR turn.  Answer my question first.... 

You are a bully. Your question shows a bully, bullying, using a straw man, just when the bully needs to stay on track. It is part of a Fluffy Jeff pattern. Please consult the thread title, and let us know your Kyle Dipshit Rittenhouse Vigilante Rating, on a scale of one to ten. One is Gandhi, ten is Boothy.

 

Bullying sucks, Jeffie. 

Pee Wee dresses for Jeffie.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

"... area ... Leadership needed in the Chicago area ... Chicago area ...

You are demanding Cure Violence Global.

CV3-Gary Skutkin, of Cure Violence.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:
23 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

So illegally possessing a gun is no better nor worse than legally possessing one? I'm going to remember that. I think it might come in handy.

Even the judge said the statute was unclear, but you be you.

 

18 hours ago, F_L said:

I think Tom is referring to Lefty's pistol.

Yes, I was.

12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Tom should chime in now and correct you that the gun, itself, wasn’t illegal. Cause guns have rights, you know.

My post was about possession and I have never said that guns have rights, but you continue to be a liar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Good post Joe. Apologies. And lay it on me again if I forget.

You might want to be careful when he lays those reminiscences on you. Look what happens when they encounter an actual linked post from the time period he's fantasizing about. And turn out to be completely fabricated and easily disproven, again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seriatim Tom said:

You might want to be careful when he lays those reminiscences on you. Look what happens when they encounter an actual linked post from the time period he's fantasizing about. And turn out to be completely fabricated and easily disproven, again.

Begone, baby. Begone to the Badgeless Dodger. Begone to Pooplius, too. But may The Dogballs be heralded, as such, forever.

 

Think back, Dogballs. I was in your face, pretty much for the first time, cuz the Zimmerman dustup. I was new at this, but now I had a hand to play: outdoor castle doctrine. You told me you were undecided about SYG> I could provoke no discussion...and you did not offer then, the post you offer today. Beyond that, please explain your rejection, if any, for SYG.

 

Quote

he lays those reminiscences on you...

I left out the period when I debunked John Lott, and then Gary Kleck, and you fell very, very silent. It was the timeframe when you failed to read the 128 page Priorities for Research, which was 2013. All your wisdom about that effort towards causal study came from the Salon article you kept posting. Yeah, Gary Kleck and John Lott soon faded from the footnotes of significant court cases. 

I left out our ~2015 romp with Adam Winkler's The Embarassing Second Amendment, which is a work you said you read, and which you linked, and which you name-dropped...but could never discuss. This work lays out, and explains, the constitutional legitimacy of gun restrictions, even under strict scrutiny.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are demanding Cure Violence Global.

Not me. I've checked your resources before. And I'd imagine every city has some sort of aspirational community code but look at how it's played out. Human nature may change but on time scales far too vast for what we need now.

Nor do I want to wade thru the professional papers but if a reader does: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cure+Violence+Global.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

I was just clicking thru theChicago Data Portaland guessing that all the money has gone to keeping track -- that's what this one does -- and other spiffy ways to show how the money was spent.

My experience in urban schools tells me that all the monies and energies need to be focused on young kids ... way pre K to grade 5 say ... after that it's too late. And even reaching little kids in clean supportive ways, while good, ignores the fact they then have to go home to ill-prepared parents with few resources and perhaps little desire or motivation or, indeed, previous experience in a warm caring home to actually care and support and love their kids ... likely because they grew up exactly the same way. 

Nothing changes until that changes. The other stuff is bandaids on open wounds. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
20 hours ago, Burning Man said:

No sorry, it's still YOUR turn.  Answer my question first.... 

You are a bully. Your question shows a bully, bullying, using a straw man, just when the bully needs to stay on track. It is part of a Fluffy Jeff pattern. Please consult the thread title, and let us know your Kyle Dipshit Rittenhouse Vigilante Rating, on a scale of one to ten. One is Gandhi, ten is Boothy.

So asking you to back up your assertions is being a bully?  Sorry joe, you area whimpering pussy.  It is a basic tenet of normal behavior here on PA to backup your assertion when asked with either cites or other evadents.  It's not hard, the video is openly available on youtube.  from numerous angles.  It would take you 30 sec to freeze the frame, take a screenshot and show us where KR is racking the AR-15 charging handle.  People who refuse to backup their assertions continually - are regarded as liars and people to not pay attention to.  Here's your chance to improve your standing here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So asking you to back up your assertions is being a bully?  Sorry joe, you area whimpering pussy.  It is a basic tenet of normal behavior here on PA to backup your assertion when asked with either cites or other evadents.  It's not hard, the video is openly available on youtube.  from numerous angles.  It would take you 30 sec to freeze the frame, take a screenshot and show us where KR is racking the AR-15 charging handle.  People who refuse to backup their assertions continually - are regarded as liars and people to not pay attention to.  Here's your chance to improve your standing here.  

FLUFF ALERT; I refer you to my signature line, which points out that stupid question hour ends after five minutes. What part of STRAW MAN does not set you back on track? 

You are a cheap little fellow who is doing a poor job of discussing the openly vigilante profile of KR's behavior. 

Jeffie, where does Kyle's bit fall, on your ten-scale of vigilantism? One is MLK, and ten is the guy who would shoot a shirtless tire-chucker...cuz fists.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

@Mark K

Sorry Cap. I've removed my rude post. Rereading your last made much more sense today. Also re-reading Jeff's comment about wet teams in the night precision targeting gang leadership is a way better idea than my steel toed boot incursion.  

No problem, never saw it. Please re-post it so I can get good and mad and then be properly apologized too...:P 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
11 hours ago, Burning Man said:

So asking you to back up your assertions is being a bully?  Sorry joe, you area whimpering pussy.  It is a basic tenet of normal behavior here on PA to backup your assertion when asked with either cites or other evadents.  It's not hard, the video is openly available on youtube.  from numerous angles.  It would take you 30 sec to freeze the frame, take a screenshot and show us where KR is racking the AR-15 charging handle.  People who refuse to backup their assertions continually - are regarded as liars and people to not pay attention to.  Here's your chance to improve your standing here.  

FLUFF ALERT

Fluff alert indeed.  You've been setting off that alarm for years.

What's so difficult about answering my question, Joe?  Is it really that hard?  You were the one who mentioned the "racking" .  Would it kill you to admit you were wrong once in a while and just move on?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, Just watch the interview Kyle did with Fox, It's all laid out. If Kyle's account makes no sense someone here will be happy to 'splain it.

 

I am curious about the personal attacks on Andy Ngo. He was soundly dismissed as a liar here without any legitimate cites and that bothers me.

I know of him and have seen a couple of his reports on local incidents that included details the local newscasters omitted

If he is a Brian Williams protégé you can save me from wasting time on him.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Fluff alert indeed.  You've been setting off that alarm for years.

What's so difficult about answering my question, Joe?  Is it really that hard?  You were the one who mentioned the "racking" .  Would it kill you to admit you were wrong once in a while and just move on?  

Oh no, Karen has the butthurt, in her big butt, over how Kyle racked "examined" his weapon... after running from a crime scene, where fatal shots were fired. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Joe, Just watch the interview Kyle did with Fox, It's all laid out. If Kyle's account makes no sense someone here will be happy to 'splain it.

Why would I go to Kyle (or Fox) for key info?

 

This Kyle has squat for creds. Let's look for legitimacy, okay? He was a phony EMT, was driving around with no license, was a youngster who needed a straw purchaser to obtain his precious, he posed away among the APC's, with self-issued orders to patrol car lots, where he was not requested or welcome.

This is a bullshit guy, who would speak bullshit to suit himself... and that shit is welcome on Fox.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2021 at 8:37 AM, VhmSays said:

Not if he had shot and killed a couple of guys just before being killed even with videos. You know KR would have come across as a RW idiot who went to play out his fantasies with his AR, killed a couple and then was killed.

He survived, became a RW idol and changed the protest scene forever. Now if you to go to a protest you don't agree with armed for battle and play out you fantasies you become rich and famous. You just need to give those angry protestors a focus for their anger and stand your ground. Self defense Milord.

You know it's going to happen, elections are on the way.

Sigh, why couldn't more of this thread been about this topic rather than the dick swinging "I know more about how tools work than you do" drivel this thread turned into, in particular the future of protests in this country, which in my opinion looks rather bleak.

Do we really want to see a war of escalation between armed camps over perceived legitimate grievances turn into a battle of who has the best pipe bombs or who has access to RPG's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2021 at 11:09 AM, jocal505 said:

 

 Mr. Charles had an MO of presenting what the Standard Model writers have claimed, by presenting their own sources... and then expanding upon the context of their sources. On the key issues, I was able to present a link to each Libertarian, the page number, the direct quote...then the context, with other sources, authors, and info which had been ignored. I MET NO CHALLENGERS except bpm57.  

 

We had a discussion about Charles but obviously, it wasn't memorable :)  I'm not BPM.

His background analysis is certainly stout but where Charles was silent is why the discontinuity between the 2nd and the other amendments in the bill of rights.  At the core, Charles is arguing that the 2nd applies "in defense of the state" and provides innumerable background support for how force of arms was regulated in British law (in defense of the state) etc.  Great.  But the Bill of Rights is a collection of what the State CAN'T do. 

You have a right to bear arms - in defense of the state.  That's his core supposition.  That's fine prima face  - but it seems out of context.

You have the right to assemble - in the defense of the state?

There are no unreasonable searches - in defense of the state?

Trial by Jury shall be preserved - in defense of the state?

That's my disagreement with Charles.  I don't recall an explanation in any of his work that addressed that issue or any of the supporting work or any of our follow up conversation.  I pretty much left it at that.  It was a good history and I learned a lot from Charles' work.  But I don't agree.  I think he's got coincidence, not causality.   But I also strongly suspect that's why the 2nd is screwed up in the first place - it DOES leverage British law but applied to a bunch of folks that just fought against application of British law.  Its an incomplete assertion of two ideas fused into one where both concepts are left lesser for the fusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

We had a discussion about Charles but obviously, it wasn't memorable :)  I'm not BPM.

His background analysis is certainly stout but where Charles was silent is why the discontinuity between the 2nd and the other amendments in the bill of rights.  At the core, Charles is arguing that the 2nd applies "in defense of the state" and provides innumerable background support for how force of arms was regulated in British law (in defense of the state) etc.  Great.  But the Bill of Rights is a collection of what the State CAN'T do. 

You have a right to bear arms - in defense of the state.  That's his core supposition. Charles got this notion from the Second That's fine prima face  - but it seems out of context. read the Second

You have the right to assemble - in the defense of the state?

There are no unreasonable searches - in defense of the state?

Trial by Jury shall be preserved - in defense of the state?

That's my disagreement with Charles.  I don't recall an explanation in any of his work that addressed that issue or any of the supporting work or any of our follow up conversation.  I pretty much left it at that.

The nomenclature "state" appears within the Second, but not within the other bills of rights, for cause. The word state was changed by Madison (from "nation" to "state"), to cover the right to subject slavery, at a state level. I quoted these developments directly, weeks ago.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

You have a right to bear arms - in defense of the state.  That's his core supposition.

He's grabby, so I think that would be, "you have a right to bear arms in your home only." The modern left has decided that the second amendment applies in the home only and SCOTUS hasn't corrected them yet.

It's a silly supposition, given what happened at Lexington and Concord, but I guess if you think those battles happened indoors, anything else is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

He's grabby, so I think that would be, "you have a right to bear arms in your home only." The modern left has decided that the second amendment applies in the home only and SCOTUS hasn't corrected them yet.

It's a silly supposition, given what happened at Lexington and Concord, but I guess if you think those battles happened indoors, anything else is possible.

please, someday, gimme someone of the level of the national merit scholarship awards. what happened to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The nomenclature "state" appears within the Second, but not within the other bills of rights, for cause. The word state was changed by Madison (from "nation" to "state"), to cover the right to subject slavery, at a state level. I quoted these developments directly, weeks ago.

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.

Sure.  But that's not the basis of Charles assertion  and doesn't answer the question.   If the 2nd is meant to support the interests of the government as proposed by Charles, why is it in the bill of rights ( which is a list of protection from government overreach ) and not in the constitution proper with the other enumerated powers?     I understand his argument but I disagree with his conclusion given the context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, animeproblem said:

the future of protests in this country, which in my opinion looks rather bleak.

Do we really want to see a war of escalation between armed camps over perceived legitimate grievances turn into a battle of who has the best pipe bombs or who has access to RPG's?

It's looking more & more like something you better get used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Why would I go to Kyle (or Fox) for key info?

 

This Kyle has squat for creds. Let's look for legitimacy, okay? He was a phony EMT, was driving around with no license, was a youngster who needed a straw purchaser to obtain his precious, he posed away among the APC's, with self-issued orders to patrol car lots, where he was not requested or welcome.

This is a bullshit guy, who would speak bullshit to suit himself... and that shit is welcome on Fox.

This is why you don't know what transpired at that moment (and a lot more...). That you attack the source that would lift you from this ignorance is hard to understand. You refuse to seek knowledge and are content to stay on your approved media's plantation.

Still no evidence of the accusations that Andy Ngo has a lack of credibility.  I'd really like to see some evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2021 at 4:22 AM, BeSafe said:

Sure.  But that's not the basis of Charles assertion  and doesn't answer the question.   If the 2nd is meant to support the interests of the government as proposed by Charles, why is it in the bill of rights ( which is a list of protection from government overreach ) and not in the constitution proper with the other enumerated powers?     I understand his argument but I disagree with his conclusion given the context.

You have the timeframes, and motives, confused. The Bill of Rights evolved, well after the construction of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was a patched-together effort, within the Bill of rights, to appease the South, in order to obtain the final ratification vote from Virginia delegates.

Patrick Charles had no say in those discussions, but the discussions applied themselves to the logic, and benefits, of controlling slaves, with gunz, in southern states... without others controlling their tools. 

And tellingly, discussions of "self defense" were not on the table, in Virginia, in the 1790's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...