Rittenhouse - Legal vs. Moral
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
You should be roasted for your obviously biased, judgmental comments.
You make a judgment on Rittenhouse - yet you don't even know him.
The rest of your
rant is simply more of the same.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
He was legally right in having the gun and morrally right in using it to defend himself. Your misrepresentation of the second amendment to justify more gun control is clearly noted. That is the real agenda of the left.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
You obviously didn't follow the details of this case, nor are you apparently aware of how tired, appalled and disgusted most of the country is at l*****ts being allowed to ravage the country at will, destroying peace, property, safety, and lives while lefty leaders tell law enforcement to stand down. You also obviously aren't aware of how dangerous our country has become, due to mob violence and random individual violence from "minority populations". Wake up. Look around.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
Sorry brat, the key words in the second amendment are "free state" and "not infringed" ...a righteous brain can figure it out.
..but a bolshevik...
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
Rittenhouse "Morally"...eliminated HUMAN EXCREMENT, & "2" EVIL MEN! FOR THAT...Biden SHOULD BE H*****G THE MEDAL OF FREEDOM AROUND HIS NECK! LEGAL, & PROPER....HE WAS!.......
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
In my opinion, your rant is flawed for a number of reasons.
You point out the “well regulated m*****a” clause. If that had been being properly maintained, as per the constitution, those r**ts wouldn’t have gotten off the ground, let alone turned into nation-wide embarrassments. What we have discovered is that the police protection that was expected by the common folk to protect them, wasn’t. It failed us. The “well regulated m*****a” of and by the people would have been exponentially more effective than these “bought and paid for” heroes that decided this wasn’t their fight. Why? Because the m*****a would have been made up, in large part, of those small business owners and had “skin in the game” where the cops obviously didn’t. That’s the big difference between them (who were acting more like paid mercenaries in these situations) and the “well regulated m*****a…the right of the people”. It appears to me, Kyle was a “one man army” representation of what should have been a m*****a.
Secondly, you even mentioned “between the ages of 15-35”. Kyle is within the age group, so what’s your issue there? Thirdly, “trained”, Kyle was obviously trained (especially as compared to that i***t lawyer who illegally pointed a gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger!). He only acted in self defense. Fourthly, your prejudice against, “that kind of lethal firepower” smacks of infringement, which is prohibited by the constitution, and for good reason. To be armed with inferior weapons is to be unarmed. If he came in there with a tank or jets or nukes, (like Joe Biden has threatened against the citizens of this country), you might have a valid point.
The question is, why are the r****rs being made heroes of by the left? The r**ts have been proven to be based on super-inflated concerns of white on black police overreach. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem, but if the concern is real, then black-on-black crime would be a much greater concern (along with the former) because that would align more with actual statistical proportions. And why are the ones who step in to help against the violence automatically considered the enemies by the left?
We seem to be living in alternate realities when it’s okay to r**t, l**t and pillage innocent businesses per folks on the left (by known felons, being instigated by Marxist groups) but it’s an outrage to them for anyone to protect the innocent or themselves. That’s upside down, inside out calling right wrong and wrong right…both legally and morally speaking.
SGM B
Loc: TEXAS but live in Alabama now
TommyRadd wrote:
In my opinion, your rant is flawed for a number of reasons.
You point out the “well regulated m*****a” clause. If that had been being properly maintained, as per the constitution, those r**ts wouldn’t have gotten off the ground, let alone turned into nation-wide embarrassments. What we have discovered is that the police protection that was expected by the common folk to protect them, wasn’t. It failed us. The “well regulated m*****a” of and by the people would have been exponentially more effective than these “bought and paid for” heroes that decided this wasn’t their fight. Why? Because the m*****a would have been made up, in large part, of those small business owners and had “skin in the game” where the cops obviously didn’t. That’s the big difference between them (who were acting more like paid mercenaries in these situations) and the “well regulated m*****a…the right of the people”. It appears to me, Kyle was a “one man army” representation of what should have been a m*****a.
Secondly, you even mentioned “between the ages of 15-35”. Kyle is within the age group, so what’s your issue there? Thirdly, “trained”, Kyle was obviously trained (especially as compared to that i***t lawyer who illegally pointed a gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger!). He only acted in self defense. Fourthly, your prejudice against, “that kind of lethal firepower” smacks of infringement, which is prohibited by the constitution, and for good reason. To be armed with inferior weapons is to be unarmed. If he came in there with a tank or jets or nukes, (like Joe Biden has threatened against the citizens of this country), you might have a valid point.
The question is, why are the r****rs being made heroes of by the left? The r**ts have been proven to be based on super-inflated concerns of white on black police overreach. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem, but if the concern is real, then black-on-black crime would be a much greater concern (along with the former) because that would align more with actual statistical proportions. And why are the ones who step in to help against the violence automatically considered the enemies by the left?
We seem to be living in alternate realities when it’s okay to r**t, l**t and pillage innocent businesses per folks on the left (by known felons, being instigated by Marxist groups) but it’s an outrage to them for anyone to protect the innocent or themselves. That’s upside down, inside out calling right wrong and wrong right…both legally and morally speaking.
In my opinion, your rant is flawed for a number of... (
show quote)
Very well spoken my friend, thank you.
đź‘Ťđź‘Ť
TommyRadd wrote:
In my opinion, your rant is flawed for a number of reasons.
You point out the “well regulated m*****a” clause. If that had been being properly maintained, as per the constitution, those r**ts wouldn’t have gotten off the ground, let alone turned into nation-wide embarrassments. What we have discovered is that the police protection that was expected by the common folk to protect them, wasn’t. It failed us. The “well regulated m*****a” of and by the people would have been exponentially more effective than these “bought and paid for” heroes that decided this wasn’t their fight. Why? Because the m*****a would have been made up, in large part, of those small business owners and had “skin in the game” where the cops obviously didn’t. That’s the big difference between them (who were acting more like paid mercenaries in these situations) and the “well regulated m*****a…the right of the people”. It appears to me, Kyle was a “one man army” representation of what should have been a m*****a.
Secondly, you even mentioned “between the ages of 15-35”. Kyle is within the age group, so what’s your issue there? Thirdly, “trained”, Kyle was obviously trained (especially as compared to that i***t lawyer who illegally pointed a gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger!). He only acted in self defense. Fourthly, your prejudice against, “that kind of lethal firepower” smacks of infringement, which is prohibited by the constitution, and for good reason. To be armed with inferior weapons is to be unarmed. If he came in there with a tank or jets or nukes, (like Joe Biden has threatened against the citizens of this country), you might have a valid point.
The question is, why are the r****rs being made heroes of by the left? The r**ts have been proven to be based on super-inflated concerns of white on black police overreach. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem, but if the concern is real, then black-on-black crime would be a much greater concern (along with the former) because that would align more with actual statistical proportions. And why are the ones who step in to help against the violence automatically considered the enemies by the left?
We seem to be living in alternate realities when it’s okay to r**t, l**t and pillage innocent businesses per folks on the left (by known felons, being instigated by Marxist groups) but it’s an outrage to them for anyone to protect the innocent or themselves. That’s upside down, inside out calling right wrong and wrong right…both legally and morally speaking.
In my opinion, your rant is flawed for a number of... (
show quote)
Well said, Tommyđź‘Źđź‘Źđź‘Źđź‘Ź
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
You are morally correct! Would have been best all around if Rittenhouse would not have been there. But where is the responsibility of government to protect citizens and property? Why didn’t the Governor, who knew this situation was going to happen, activate the National Guard? Rittenhouse, as the incident happened, was within his rights to protect his life from attacks by proven criminals. Along with rights comes responsibilities! Background checks, fingerprints, required weapons training and education of legal aspects of firearm use would be a great start.
Snoopy
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
You should stick to posting on subjects about which you have some knowledge. Assuming you ever find any.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
In 1972 I was seventeen years old, and Viet-Nam was a definite possibility for me once I graduated high-school. At the advice of many Vets in my family, and friends, I pre-enlisted. This was an attempt to keep me out of the infantry, and possibly choose a safer job...I don't remember. Anyway, the "war" ended, and the recruiter offered me the chance to back-out, and I took it. My point is that our "govern"ment can use these young people for [insert YOUR opinion on why we were in Viet-Nam] k*****g, but one kid makes an admittingly foolish decision [breaking NO law] ,and you are going to bring up "Morals". I'm not judging you, you're entitled to your opinion. But, you've conventiently omitted some facts. First, training...that young man was obviously trained with that firearm. He waited [too long in my opinion] until the absolute last moment before responding to a deadly threat. He fired accurately from unnatural positions [Definitely Training] His trigger-discipline was better than the prosecuter, who aimed that very same firearm at dozens of people with his FINGER ON THE TRIGGER.I could go on, talk about adrenalin-dumps, the chaos, confusion etc.
The law. Where was your post after the summer of 2020 ? THOUSANDS of young people burned, beat and terrorized entire cities. Federal buildings. Police stations and vehicles were attacked. HUNDREDS of innocent citizens were beaten, robbed or forced out of their homes. The law... morality...
Rittenhouse was trained in many "Civil Defense" type of sk**ls, ALL intended to HELP people in a jam...beaten, shot,
maybe raped. To use these sk**ls he needed to be in the thick of the action, which brings us to his choice of weapon.
If you are going to carry a gun un-concealed, carry a GUN. The psychologic element alone of that A.R. probably stopped fifteen, maybe twenty more r****rs from attacking him.
Kyle Rittenhouse was/is clearly on his way to becoming a public servant, either Police or Paramedic. His motives were pure, but his youthful zealotry got him too close to some truly evil people. He LEGALLY defended himself. If it were you and your family he defended from these vermin, your note would have an entirely different tone. F.J.B.
whitnebrat wrote:
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, but there is such a thing as moral right and wrong versus legal right and wrong. What may be legally right may indeed be morally wrong, and visa-versa. And on these basic issues, being judgmental isn't a sin. Or maybe it is, depending on your moral viewpoint. I'll take the flak.
Take for example the aquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. First, we take off the table the whole issue of 'self defense'. None of us can be in the mind of an immature teenager carrying an instrument capable of delivering deadly force as to whether he sensed 'mortal danger'. This is absurd to think that a person of that age without any training could be allowed to carry that firepower in that situation. And in addition, at what point could any of us determine that we are in "mortal danger"? Does being attacked with a skateboard constitute this? I will grant that having a gun pointed in your direction can constitute this, but even law enforcement usually should not fire unless they are being fired upon. At least that's the theory ...
We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
Yes, we allow people of that age to carry that kind of lethal firepower in the miltary. But that is a totally different situation. First, there are rules of engagement that have to be followed. Second, the training theoretically teaches them the elements of firearm safety and basic rules for lethal shooting. Third, there is a modicum of control over the ability of the average soldier to even carry a firearm except on a battlefield, civil i**********n or training exercise. Fourth, the actual carrying of these weapons is strictly controlled, with most of them being held in an armory until authorized for use.
The Second Amendment people are praising Rittenhouse as being a hero and 'upholding Second Amendment rights' to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment was originally in place because every able-bodied male between the ages of 15 and 35 or so was considered to be in the m*****a of that town or township. They drilled on Sundays in the town square, and had officers in control of those drills. That is why the wording of the Second Amendment is critical (if mostly overlooked). It says "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This enabled those m*****a members to keep the firearms in their homes, and be called out to defend the 'state' when necessary. They were the 'standing army' of the time. In the U.S. once we established a standing army, after the Civil War, there was technically no longer any reason for the average citizen to possess semi-automatic or fully automatic firearms unless they were in the National Guard or the Reserves, and then it would be tightly controlled. We currently regulate fully-automatic weapons for citizen possession and use. For hunting, using only bolt-action weapons without clips should have been the norm.
Our Second Amendment has been legally misconstrued (in my opinion) for decades, resulting in the massive numbers of firearms in this country, whose owners are mostly untrained and uncontrolled as to their use. This is a recipe for the events that unfolded in Kenosha, Columbine, Aurora, Parkland, El Paso, Las Vegas and multiple other venues.
In this particular case in Kenosha, there is no logical reason for an untrained youngster to be anywhere in the neighborhood of a volatile event like that, ESPECIALLY armed with that kind of lethal firepower and lacking control of any kind from any level of authority (parental or otherwise). If you can make a case for the morality of that, I'd love to hear it.
I maintain that the acquittal was legally right, but morally reprehensible on any number of levels.
First, the legislation regarding the ability of people under eighteen to carry semi-automatic weapons was fatally flawed, and the judge threw out the possession charge on a technicality. Legally right but morally wrong.
Second, to allow anyone who is not a part of law enforcement or National Guard (under eighteen or not) to patrol the streets with firearms, especially in a pre-r**t, intra-r**t, or post-r**t situation is asking for trouble. Without the command structure and training, they become vigilantes and situations such as this one in Kenosha are bound to happen. Again, legally right, but morally wrong.
Third, the lack of parental control as to his use (and possession) of that firearm by their child makes me wonder as to the morality of the parents as well. In this case, his mother even drove him to the event. How was this in any way a good moral decision on her part? Legally right (I guess), but definitely morally wrong for her to put her child in a dangerous situation, where it eventually went fatally wrong. Ask yourself if you would have done the same without being there yourself and supervising them (i.e. being responsible for them.)
There are a variety of moral issues that can be quoted here, but it boils down to this:
Do we want a civil society or not? When differences of opinion are settled by firearms, we're back in 'frontier justice' times of the Old West. That's no longer who we are as a country. This is morality 101. By giving citizens the authority for owning and using firearms without holding them responsible for their use and possession in public is to violate the moral norms of this nation's history.
I'm sure the Second Amendment advocates will dispute almost all of this, but I think the moral high ground is on my side in this.
I'll be roasted for being judgmental with this, bu... (
show quote)
You lost me on paragraph two.
***We can, however, say without reservation that it was morally wrong, but legally OK(?) for Rittenhouse to have been openly carrying a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a volatile situation. In a broader sense, it was morally wrong but legally OK for him to have been there to begin with.
>>>There is no justification for your comment especially "without reservation." You forgot two many points so your conclusion is wrong.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
