Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[dlerious]

But 2A says you can break any law just to exercise your rights.

If that was the case, felons wouldn't be prohibited persons.

 

[outriding]

But 2A says you can break any law just to exercise your rights.

take that libtards

 

[darkswordsman17]

Is that how lying sacks of shit describe running away, running for your life against a rioting lynch mob?
It will always be self defense no matter how many lies are told about it.

Sure if you're a chickenshit coward you can claim everything is self defense because you're scared out of your mind at all times. But then it'd beg the question of whyTF the chickenshit little punkass bitch was there in the first place, but that wouldn't fit your narrative of him running away then would it? Nah, let's ignore all the facts to justify being cowards. He never should have been there, never should have had the gun.

It does show me why you are the way you are. You're simply a pathetic coward.

Maybe you should sell your persecution complex ideals to right wingers for how not only should you be allowed to send rape/death threats online without repercussions, its your right as a means of self defense!

Since you're having another episode, figured I could offer you some advice. You know you can pay a dominatrix to satisfy your boot licking urges, right? And in doing so you don't have to enable fascist dickheads at every single fucking opportunity. But just pragmatically, it would at least hopefully get you to stop ejaculating your right wing urges on here.

 

[KMFJD]

If that was the case, felons wouldn't be prohibited persons.

people with Domestic Violence restraining orders just regained the right to own guns while on trial

MSN

 

[pmv]

There's an odd physical similarity between this guy and George Santos.

people with Domestic Violence restraining orders just regained the right to own guns while on trial

MSN

Fascinating where this is going to go. The Supreme's "history and tradition" theory seems to be giving rise to a cruder form in the lower courts. Be interesting to see how far the Supreme Court is prepared to run with this more version of their sophistry.

Essentially the US is henceforth to return to the cultural and political norms of the 18th century.

he 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the ban on weapons in this context "is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted"

Your 'ancestors' would not have accepted a lot of things, including the abolition of slavery or a woman's right to own property. But I guess the real biggies are safe because you already fought a civil war over them and thus managed to get them into that Constitution. But everything else is apparently now to be rolled-back 300 years or so.

The message is, if you want to progress in any way beyond the 18th century, you need to first ensure millions die in a war over it, so you can get it into that wretched document, that strangles hope like a ligature around the neck of democracy.

No other means of progress is acceptable to the kritarchy.

 

[ivwshane]

There's an odd physical similarity between this guy and George Santos.


Fascinating where this is going to go. The Supreme's "history and tradition" theory seems to be giving rise to a cruder form in the lower courts. Be interesting to see how far the Supreme Court is prepared to run with this more version of their sophistry.

Essentially the US is henceforth to return to the cultural and political norms of the 18th century.



Your 'ancestors' would not have accepted a lot of things, including the abolition of slavery or a woman's right to own property. But I guess the real biggies are safe because you already fought a civil war over them and thus managed to get them into that Constitution. But everything else is apparently now to be rolled-back 300 years or so.

The message is, if you want to progress in any way beyond the 18th century, you need to first ensure millions die in a war over it, so you can get it into that wretched document, that strangles hope like a ligature around the neck of democracy.

No other means of progress is acceptable to the kritarchy.

The 1800’s had more restrictions on guns than we do now (at the state level). I feel like e we are more like the 1600’s than anything. You know when they had all those witch trials and the puritans.

 

[Vic]

Is that how lying sacks of shit describe running away, running for your life against a rioting lynch mob?
It will always be self defense no matter how many lies are told about it.

It's not a lie to say that no one would have died that night if Rittenhouse wasn't there.

 

[Homerboy]

This an interesting and adventurous angle (that I approve of)

 

[SMOGZINN]

Be interesting to see how far the Supreme Court is prepared to run with this more version of their sophistry.

Only so far as it supports their political agenda. As soon as someone tries to use those same arguments for something that is not a part of their agenda those arguments will suddenly no longer be persuasive.

The message is, if you want to progress in any way beyond the 18th century, you need to first ensure millions die in a war over it, so you can get it into that wretched document, that strangles hope like a ligature around the neck of democracy.

No the message is that they come up with the judgement they want then look for an excuse for it instead of judging the cases on any sort of consistent legal theory. Next time it might be some other legal theory that fits their political agenda, and traditionalism (or whatever they are trying to call this theory) will no longer apply.

 

[MrSquished]

If there was a weekend that I was drinking beers and it came on the news that the piece of shit Kyle got run over and killed by a truck I'd probably have an extra beer just for that.