JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
This statement is so f'd up on so many levels.
First, A jury will decide Rittenhouse's fate. He chose to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time LARPing that resulted in two deaths. The last guy he killed was "armed" with a skateboard. From the video footage I saw, his self-defense claim is about as good as the guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery. It's up to a jury to figure it out. IMO whovever got the great idea to take him and hand him a rifle is really responsible for those two deaths.
...
It sounds like you watched the wrong video. And your language suggests personal animosity toward the defendant. It seems a pretty big stretch that you could think a skateboard isn't a deadly weapon.
 
He chose to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time LARPing that resulted in two deaths. The last guy he killed was "armed" with a skateboard.
Mikey, so did the armed assailants, wrt 'wrong place'. But Kyle was not the aggressor, they were, that's central to his defense. The law says self-defense is justifiable when faced with a threat of grave bodily injury, or death. Skate boards are known to cause grave bodily injury - it's why Antifa weenies use them at 'mostly peaceful riots', then there is the firearm wielded by a 2nd assailant.

A public defender could get Kyle off. It was a righteous shooting.

BTW, where are the feds? A felon in possession of a firearm is a federal crime, subject to up to 10 years in prison. There's photographic evidence. Lock 'em up!
 
Hahaha! I knew if I expressed my opinion my notifications would blow up. Every few months I seem to put on the target shirt. Happy preaching to your choir gentlemen!
 
Hahaha! I knew if I expressed my opinion my notifications would blow up. Every few months I seem to put on the target shirt. Happy preaching to your choir gentlemen!
One need not be very clever to frame a comment in a way that is guaranteed to piss off folks who prefer facts, evidence and logic over the ubiquitous MSM commentary preferred by the gorp gobbing outrage mob. This is why the trolling folk are not that hard to sniff out…same MO, different day.
 
DANG! Starz burned down???? Once upon a time, one of my fav places. One time a dancer came over to my table and upon my refusal to buy a lap dance asked me WTF I was doing there. Hey, I thought I had gone to drink beer and watch naked gals dance and wave their woowoos around. She thought I was there to give away all my money. A matter of perspective I guess. Stopped going places like that when I got older... it was kinda embarrassing.

Didja know about the peep shows next door and the viewing booths with all the glory holes? Went in to see what was what, saw all the blowup dolls and toyz, and got propositioned by a few guys. Freaky place!!! Ewwwwwwwwwww.
Dang!

LOL

I laughed so hard reading this - I almost choked on my coffee.

My husband is laughing because I read him your post.

Have a good day!

Cate
 
This statement is so f'd up on so many levels.
First, A jury will decide Rittenhouse's fate. He chose to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time LARPing that resulted in two deaths. The last guy he killed was "armed" with a skateboard. From the video footage I saw, his self-defense claim is about as good as the guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery. It's up to a jury to figure it out. IMO whovever got the great idea to take him and hand him a rifle is really responsible for those two deaths.

Second, it sounds alot like you're hint-and-wink advocating mass shootings. Really not a great look for the community.
I sort of understand the desire to come in and troll this forum because it's often too easy and too irresistible. But having seen your comments pop up here and there and noticing a theme, I'm curious if you align more with the John Brown Gun Club than anyone here.

I don't expect you to declare where you really fall on the spectrum, mind you. Why put yourself out there for abuse even if the mods police the posts. Your approach just seems....interesting, and your logical misses with false equivalency is commonly observed amongst the DS/A crowds.
 
I sort of understand the desire to come in and troll this forum because it's often too easy and too irresistible. But having seen your comments pop up here and there and noticing a theme, I'm curious if you align more with the John Brown Gun Club than anyone here.

I don't expect you to declare where you really fall on the spectrum, mind you. Why put yourself out there for abuse even if the mods police the posts. Your approach just seems....interesting, and your logical misses with false equivalency is commonly observed amongst the DS/A
Pretty liberal. The name of the forum is Northwest Firearms not the OAN forum. Is there anything more pointless than preaching to a choir?
 
I'll toss up links to Ayoob's thoughts when I get back to the laptop. Mas's take based on facts and evidence, and he makes a pretty good argument unless you're a whiny little "F the FACTS because MUH FEEWINGS!" sort for Justified.
 
With that said, why are you so hateful that some deserving scumbags were shot?
Hateful? Advocating that scumbags should be shot is hateful, IMO. Should a vandal be shot? A participant in a fistfight? How about you local neighborhood nuisance camper? No one should have been shot. Moreover if someone didn't stick a 17 year old kid into a protest/with rioting happening with a loaded AR15--or if this minor had not made this choice--it's possible no one would have been shot. Remember this kid shot 3 people at three different times, not just this particular ashhole who is the subject of this post.

I wasn't there and neither were any of us. As I've said elsewhere a jury will figure it out based on the evidence presented.

Guns make us safer when we're minding our own business. They make us targets of people with good and bad intentions if we walk around in public brandishing them. Honestly, if you saw some teenager out in the street with an AR 15 in Portland your first inclination would be to view him as a threat--and depending on your options maybe one to be neutralized--not a responsible armed citizen.
 
Guns make us safer when we're minding our own business. They make us targets of people with good and bad intentions if we walk around in public brandishing them. Honestly, if you saw some teenager out in the street with an AR 15 in Portland your first inclination would be to view him as a threat--and depending on your options maybe one to be neutralized--not a responsible armed citizen.
I'd agree with that assessment. We all paint OC folks with our own brush of bias.

When I see black bloc with weapons, I think threat and target, absolutely. When I see anti-black-bloc with weapons, I think reckless escalation. And any big pro OC gathering, I automatically default to dumb Fudd.
 
Remember this kid shot 3 people at three different times, not just this particular ashhole who is the subject of this post.
No he didn't, he shot the ginger molester dwarf who was chasing him down, he was then being chased by the mob, within minutes was attacked and shot skate board guy after taking a blow to the head and within second shot the third guy with a pistol who has stated he wish he killed the kid, but the kid was faster and blew off his bicep.
 
Wait! Now I read that this Gauge fellow had a concealed weapons permit! Is that accurate?!? I can't imagine that he'd so publically lie about that in the printed media before suing the City of Kenosha (bad to be known liar before trial). If so, that seems like a fact that's highly relevant to this forum of armchair analysis, scumbag or not. Perhaps that's why he wasn't charged?

(The sound of sails luffing).
 
Him lying about having a concealed permit is less interesting than what he's actually faced:
2016 conviction (misdemeanor) carrying a firearm while intoxicated
A non-prosecuted (person declined to file charges) on FB threats.
Citations for vehicle prowling

Gauge basically looks like a $h!tbag from the word go. The videos of him advancing on Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was on his butt - the delay when Gauge stopped his aggression, and then taking the bullet when he lunged in again isn't going to help his case at all.

I hope he learns to bowl left-handed.
 
Him lying about having a concealed permit is less interesting than what he's actually faced:
2016 conviction (misdemeanor) carrying a firearm while intoxicated
A non-prosecuted (person declined to file charges) on FB threats.
Citations for vehicle prowling

Gauge basically looks like a $h!tbag from the word go. The videos of him advancing on Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was on his butt - the delay when Gauge stopped his aggression, and then taking the bullet when he lunged in again isn't going to help his case at all.

I hope he learns to bowl left-handed.
Agree, he might be a scumbag depending on what he's been convicted of. Yet this post started with the query of why this particular guy hasn't been charged with a crime because he too had a weapon. I didn't read all prior posts but there seemed to be no mention that this guy claims he was legally in possession of a firearm and apparently didn't fire it that night. If true (I suspect it'd be news if not) then we're comparing the rights of two individuals to use firearms to "protect themselves" and more dubiously "protect others [property]" Then shouldn't we be arguing about BOTH of their rights, 1st and 2nd Amendment? If we really view these folks differently then aren't those views really a political discussion about whose First and Second Amendment rights matter more: "racial justice" protesters or "law and order" or "Blue Lives Matter" counter-protesters? That then seems to be a polirical debate and not a debate about firearms or self-defense when using firearms.

How about this for a thought experiment: What if Gague killed Rittenhouse with his pistol and was charged with similar charges? Would self defense apply? To make it cleaner lets assume Gauge (Gage?) didn't witness Rittenhouse shooting someone else so couldn't have made any real judgments about Rittenhouse's intent. What result? I'm not a criminal lawyer, but this scenario raises the question in my mind of whether self-defense applies if someone shoots another in a situation where two people who have no prior intent to harm each other are armed and encounter each other and both reasonably fear the other may use deadly force on them under the circumstances? I legitimately don't know the answer but I suspect it depends on nuances in the scenario that are hard to determine without eyewitness testimony.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top