Honesty time for swagger, I do not find a firearm offensive and have carried one responsibly going on 30 years now almost daily. I am actually quite comfortable with them, and definitely more comfortable when it is on my side. I carry concealed, and if you did not hug me would have no idea it was even there.
Everybody has a an opinion, and this is one of those subjects that opinions run strong with, I understand that. We have rights to opinions, and to express them, however we do not have a right to not be offended. Being offended is just part of life that we have to accept. Hell i am probably offended at least 5 times a day if not more, but i go about my business still respecting ones opinion whether it offends me or not.
I respect you BW but, to say there can be no argument, this i do not understand. To say that there can be no argument would imply everybody would think the same which would imply that there can be no individualism, or free thought.
This is one of those hard lines drawn in the sand that will never be erased, and we can debate all day and night and we would both walkaway thinking the same as we do right now.
I saw above where BW said a knife is okay, and although a knife can be a deadly instrument, when it comes to me and those i love, I will always choose the weapon that gives me the best chance of coming out on top. it is not about a fair fight, its about winning the fight to live another day. If you show up for a fair fight, you did not show up prepared.
As for Kyle Rittenhouse
Being at that riot after curfew broke the law - charge him
Possession of a firearm by a minor - charge him
But I watched that footage live as it went down and also many times after from different phones and cameras, angles, and perspectives, and what i saw was somebody defending them self from aggressors. the three that were shot (all by Kyle best i was able to tell) were both, verbally and physically threatening his life, he had a tool to prevent this and he he used it. should he have been there ... no, should he have had the rifle ... no, but what he did do is save his own life, he defended himself. He also only shot the three that were immediate threats to him ... Shot # 1 was at a man who was threatening him in a parking lot down the block and then chased Kyle as he tried to first run away from the aggressor and avoid confrontation, the aggressor was not shot until he caught up with Kyle and he could no longer get away ... shot # 2 & 3 were at an aggressor that was repeatedly pummeling him in the head with a skateboard ... shot # 4 was at another aggressor who drew a pistol and intended fully to do him harm. I will say this, Kyle did show extreme discipline in the deployment of the firearm to eliminate only what was a direct threat to him, he only deployed the firearm when he was caught by the first guy he was running from, and after the threats were neutralized he stopped and withdrew himself from the situation. I do not understand why after repeatedly trying to turn himself in at the end of the block he was literally ignored by the cops, this part here makes no sense. There was talk of a few cops saying something to one of the militia leaders along the lines of we are going to push the protestors to you guys and let you deal with them (this is where the conspiracy Val speaks of comes in).
I am honestly on the fence, there is definitely laws broken, but to me there is a huge gray area when it comes to the most egregious of the charges. did he shoot them, absolutely, did he kill two people absolutely, should he have been there no, did he defend his own life absolutely, if he did not use the rifle would he have at a minimum been beaten to a hospitalized state by the first aggressor if not killed ... I honestly believe he would have, did Kyle Rittenhouse fear for his own life ... i have no doubt, regardless of all this are they going to run this kid through the ringer ... I believe they are, does he deserve to be ... this is where i am on the fence.