Damn, haven't seen that one in a minute! Some old skool posting right there.

In fact, I'm not even convinced I've ever seen or heard it used outside of IT forums.

I think it originally comes from a Robert Heinlein novel, maybe Stranger in a Strange Land. I haven't read that in a long time.

yes, stranger in a strange land

I could sort of understand DJ's argument if the kid hadn't actually ended up doing exactly what he said! As it stands, I'm puzzled as to why he'd even take this line.

Rittenhouse didn't shoot any shoplifters. He shot three people, each one of whom directly attacked him. You may not consider that difference to be important, but the judge does. Either way, whether you agree or not, that is the argument. You of course may well disagree, but there's nothing puzzling about it.

That won't happen. I'm guessing that the plan is simply to take that charge on the chin.

I'm not saying that I think there is a high probability that KR went there with the explicit intention of shooting people he considered to be criminals. I am saying that given the facts that a). KR is on video saying he'd like to shoot criminals with his AR-15, b). he took his AR-15 somewhere where he considered a lot of criminal activity to be taking place, and c). he did in fact end up shooting several people, speculating on this possibility is neither contrary to common sense, nor arguing in bad faith.

This is 100% correct.

Hunting has never appealed to me at all, but this is a little over the top.

My brother hunts deer. Because he has venison in his freezer at all times, he hasn't bought red meat for home consumption in years. That's tough behavior for anyone who buys meat from a grocery store to criticize on ethical or environmental grounds.

Great and I am not arguing against the US having its 'well-regulated militia'.

The question is over what regulations they should follow.

So again back to my point, if there is an active bank robbery where the police are not storming the building due to them believing that could cause escalations and deaths, in your position a well regulated militia could show up and choose to storm the bank because the police are not acting.

Give me a single distinction why the latter would be wrong for them to do as compared to this situations active crime scene if the Police simply told the Militia to 'stay out... this is an active crime scene'?

The reason i raise this is because prior I thought there was a gap in the law that allowed this vigilante action but the more I have discussed the more I have realized there is not. What I have realized is the police have the law but they choose to ignore it and often to instead steer these parties into collusion courses.

Hunting does not ONLY involve the tracking and pursuit and also involves baiting, waiting and then shooting those who fall for the bait and react.

So in this case calling it 'hunting' is certainly not a crazy stretch based on KR comments. He shows himself to be itching to have an excuse to engage and unload his guns at those people.

Ya i don't hunt but hunters actions are far more ethical than buying and eating meat from a grocery store if the meat is being eaten.

Whether a deer dies at the jaws of a Wolf or the bow of a hunter is of no difference to the deer. It lived it life as intended and died to predation which is completely natural to them. Man is not an outsider to this cycle and IS part of it.

Beyond that as man almost always culls the predators from proximity to populaces you can argue then man has a responsibility to hunt and manage the prey populations as they can and DO then grow to numbers that cause massive damage to the entire ecosystem and become sickly themselves due to mass numbers. Time and again we see this as even the topography is damaged. River systems, flora and fauna all at threat if man does not correct our presence with culls to control population.

Not meaning to insult but the anti-hunting one is purely anti-intellectual and purely based on feelings. It is 'i wish no animal ever had to die therefore hunting must be wrong!'. And it is not.

Fair enough. We're not far apart on this point if at all. I don't know what I would have done on the previous video if I'd been Schroeder. Similarity matters, and I'd need to book up on the law on this question before coming to a view. At the same time, I'd bet a lot of money that 80 per cent of the jurors on that panel know about that video from looking at trial coverage at home in the dark of night, just as they know that Rosenbaum was a pedo. I don't like either fact but it's the world we live in.

Except when they stab tennis players.

I went hunting once and disliked the killing part of it. I also find it gruesome and somewhat creepy. I have also helped to slaughter sheep, on the theory that I should know how lamb at the table gets there. That is hard too, but I don't find it creepy -- just very distasteful and cruel.

When lab meat becomes a capable substitute, I'm all in on it for this reason.

Or trap kids in their basement for twenty years.

The quote you're referencing seems to exaggerate the meaning of sociopathy. Hunting is often a very social activity. Hunters often go out in groups and establish close bonds with one another; that's not consistent with the characteristics of sociopathy.

You know baiting is illegal here in Canada


I watched Morning Joe this AM and all they could say how reckless it was to bring an AR 15 out to that scene. Nothing on bringing handguns.
How about when you go to protest no one brings weapons and those that do get charged no matter what color their skin is

Maybe I am extrapolating too much from the Rittenhouse-types that I knew in high school, but I feel pretty confident that I know what his mental state was.

He is a gun nut who wanted to play Billy Badass. He didn't give a **** about property damage to some car dealership or "protecting his community," but when he heard about what was going on in Kenosha, he thought it would be a real kick to stand in front of a business with a big gun and yell "keep moving, *****!"

Per the video that d2 posted, he might well have imagined what it would be like to shoot someone or bragged to friends that he would shoot anyone who ****ed with him. But he never thought it was a real possibility that he would end up face to face with someone else who had a gun. When the situation proved to be much more volatile and much less fun than he imagined, he responded like a scared shitless teenager, which is exactly why it was so reckless for him to go down there with a gun in the first place.

Sure, although I would note that this bonding often takes the form of everyone consuming a pint or more of Wild Turkey in the evening and then wandering out to their tree stands at 5 am the following morning with smashing headaches.

That's just crazy in what state of mind that fat kid was telling that he wants to shoot people. This should def be allowed. If not on legal grounds than on ethical ones.

So now you can have fat kids running around in protests with semi automatic machine guns strapped to their McDonald filled bellies. Well, isn't that something?

Welcome to America, baby!

That's so stupid. Why do I think if he was a black kid they would have shot him immediately?

Let me get this straight,
- so first they shoot an unarmed teenager in the back 7 times for nothing. They straight up murder him.
- and then they let a fat white kid kill innocent people in the streets with a machine gun, and do not shoot him, they even make him a martyrer now?

If this was a movie it would be terrible.


https://youtu.be/Ilk_4e73XRc

The gun possession statute is very complex and difficult. It is not at all clear that Rittenhouse violated it.

+1

It would be pretty terrible for criminal defendants generally if this sort of evidence was routinely admitted.

Well, we first need to establish what they were doing with rifles. You keep calling them vigilantes, but that seems to be grounded solely in the fact that three people were shot. None of the others with AR's shot anyone to prevent businesses from burning (nor did Rittenhouse) or shot anyone to prevent other crimes, so is your argument that anyone open-carrying a rifle in front of a business as a deterrent a vigilante?

When the mob was met by a husband and wife holding an AR and a pistol, when they busted through their gated community and marched over to their house, were they vigilantes?

What would you personally do if a mob of people come to your house and the police have no interest in doing anything? This is a very relevant question because when all the businesses are torched to the ground, they need new buildings to burn. That could be your house.

As for the bank robbery example, I think a closer scenario is the bank robbers have killed 3 hostages and 3 hostages are left and one of the 3 is your wife/kid/parent, and the cops tell you that they refuse to give in to their demands but your money is safe because either they'll give up or kill the last hostages and then they'll go in and get them and retrieve the money.

Yeah, that's ridiculous too, but your scenario is nothing similar to the riots since the police are actually working the case and have a plan to get people out safely rather than just letting it run its course.

The key issue here is any time the mob reached the homes or offices of a local politician, the mob was prevented from doing any damage. Why do citizens not get afforded the same protection by the police?