The Call to Arms

[ouch]

As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, what's taking place after yesterday's (acquittal) verdict brings grave concern. There's been this odd uptick with the call to arms on social media. One by a (R) US Rep and another by a senior (extremist supporter of white nationalists) researcher at Media Matters. One would think that such call to arms would be associate with a guilty verdict of somebody famous for killing protesters, but to have a call of arms for that person's acquittal appears to be of a political nature. In my opinion, it's being geared at Democratic supporters. In an already toxic atmosphere where gun violence is increasing, I can not and will not support this call to arms. Yes, even if it were directed to Trumplican supporters, this is dangerous messaging for our society. The 2nd amendment is there for US citizens to protect themselves in a defensive manner. It's not there for US citizens to take up offensive positions like some militias do. Now, after yesterday's verdict, I am afraid that more individuals will abuse our right to bare arms.

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous' After Rittenhouse Verdict

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous'

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias': Far Right Reacts to Rittenhouse Verdict

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias':​

Following the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting case, far-right groups and individuals have started reacting—some celebrating, others calling to take up arms.

For example, on Friday, Gab–the so-called free speech social network that is popular on the far-right–reportedly sent out an email encouraging followers to "buy firearms and form Christian militias," reported Alex Kaplan, a researcher with the watchdog group Media Matters.


A channel for the far-right group, the Proud Boys, on the group chat application Telegram included a commenter writing, "There's still a chance for this country," NPR reported. In another channel, a member wrote, "The left wont stop until their bodied get stacked up like cord wood."

 

[Mycroft]

As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, what's taking place after yesterday's (acquittal) verdict brings grave concern. There's been this odd uptick with the call to arms on social media. One by a (R) US Rep and another by a senior (extremist supporter of white nationalists) researcher at Media Matters. One would think that such call to arms would be associate with a guilty verdict of somebody famous for killing protesters, but to have a call of arms for that person's acquittal appears to be of a political nature. In my opinion, it's being geared at Democratic supporters. In an already toxic atmosphere where gun violence is increasing, I can not and will not support this call to arms. Yes, even if it were directed to Trumplican supporters, this is dangerous messaging for our society. The 2nd amendment is there for US citizens to protect themselves in a defensive manner. It's not there for US citizens to take up offensive positions like some militias do. Now, after yesterday's verdict, I am afraid that more individuals will abuse our right to bare arms.

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous' After Rittenhouse Verdict

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous'

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias': Far Right Reacts to Rittenhouse Verdict

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias':​

Following the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting case, far-right groups and individuals have started reacting—some celebrating, others calling to take up arms.

For example, on Friday, Gab–the so-called free speech social network that is popular on the far-right–reportedly sent out an email encouraging followers to "buy firearms and form Christian militias," reported Alex Kaplan, a researcher with the watchdog group Media Matters.


A channel for the far-right group, the Proud Boys, on the group chat application Telegram included a commenter writing, "There's still a chance for this country," NPR reported. In another channel, a member wrote, "The left wont stop until their bodied get stacked up like cord wood."

What you are misunderstanding is that the "call to arms" is not a call to take the fight to anyone. It's a call to take up arms and defend yourself from others who would do you harm.

From your article...

"Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, my friends. You have a right to defend yourself," Cawthorn said in a video posted Friday to his Instagram stories. "Be armed, be dangerous, be moral."​

 

[Common Sense 1]

It seems that some of the left and our anti-gun freinds do not support people being to defend themselves or their family's.

The crazy response from them on the verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse is stunning.
They obviously did not watch any of the actual trial. If they did they would not be acting out like they are now. The jury carefully looked at all the charges and came to the not gulity verdicts.

People have an absolute right to defend their familes and themselves.

 

[What if...?]

What you are misunderstanding is that the "call to arms" is not a call to take the fight to anyone. It's a call to take up arms and defend yourself from others who would do you harm.

From your article...

"Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, my friends. You have a right to defend yourself," Cawthorn said in a video posted Friday to his Instagram stories. "Be armed, be dangerous, be moral."​

Yup. Carry your gun around and you get to act any way you want. Treat people any way you want. Then if they get pissed you can say you were scared, blow them away, and walk away Scot free.

A free pass for assholes everywhere to asshole their asses off.

 

[What if...?]

It seems that some of the left and our anti-gun freinds do not support people being to defend themselves or their family's.

The crazy response from them on the verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse is stunning.
They obviously did not watch any of the actual trial. If they did they would not be acting out like they are now. The jury carefully looked at all the charges and came to the not gulity verdicts.

People have an absolute right to defend their familes and themselves.

Nobody wants you to not he able to defend yourself.

What we are calling into question is the absolute right to do go anywhere and literally do anything to anybody when you have your gun and kill anybody who doesn't just submit.

Zero personal responsibility for one's actions that led to the confrontation.

None of which fits the general understanding of "self defense". Nowhere in that is "start a fight, shoot your opponent if you're losing".

 

[Common Sense 1]

Nobody wants you to not he able to defend yourself.

What we are calling into question is the absolute right to do go anywhere and literally do anything to anybody when you have your gun and kill anybody who doesn't just submit.

Zero personal responsibility for one's actions that led to the confrontation.

None of which fits the general understanding of "self defense". Nowhere in that is "start a fight, shoot your opponent if you're losing".

Who has that absolute right? Where has it happened?

 

[Common Sense 1]

What does submit mean?

 

[Mycroft]

Yup. Carry your gun around and you get to act any way you want. Treat people any way you want. Then if they get pissed you can say you were scared, blow them away, and walk away Scot free.

A free pass for assholes everywhere to asshole their asses off.

Nothing has been said about "act any way you want". Nothing has been said about "treat people any way you want".

The only thing that has been said is "You have the right to defend yourself."

Quit making shit up.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Yup. Carry your gun around and you get to act any way you want. Treat people any way you want. Then if they get pissed you can say you were scared, blow them away, and walk away Scot free.

A free pass for assholes everywhere to asshole their asses off.

Absolutely a false post!! Made up nonsense! You understand that KR was attacked?

 

[What if...?]

Who has that absolute right? Where has it happened?

Both of the cases currently at hand FFS.

All of the defendants charged armed into situations that went sideways as a result.

And killed people in the process.

Maybe you can answer the question no one else has:

Is there any point at which you lose your absolute right to defend yourself? Where your actions make you partially or completely responsible for killing someone as a result?

As it stands you can walk around with a gun and say or do any ****ing thing you want and if you're called out on it shoot that person and claim you were scared so you had to defend yourself.

"Defense" has an "in place" "attacked while minding your own business" connotation. And is perfectly appropriate.

But the way many laws are written they facilitate assholes acting outrageously and legally killing the consequences of their actions.

All involving running towards a confrontation. Not being attacked while minding your own business.

And you never ever ever want to discuss how the person on the other side of the question felt or thought about what was happening.

Like in the arbury case. I would have taken one look at those guys and worried they were looking to replace their worn out Geek. Or any number of other things. None of which would bode well for me if they caught me.

Y'all convicted arbury of a crime instantly. And he therefore deserved whatever happened to him, in the street, without a trial.

When not a one of you would have taken the same position if three black guys were chasing you in two cars with guns and demanding you stop and submit to them.

 

[What if...?]

Nothing has been said about "act any way you want". Nothing has been said about "treat people any way you want".

The only thing that has been said is "You have the right to defend yourself."

Quit making shit up.

Doesn't have to be "said", that's the way the laws are written. They don't place any limits on preceding behavior. No mitigation. No responsibility for the shooter's part in the situation. None.

And dead people.don't get to tell their side. By definition.

So in actual reality lots of folks who bear some or full responsibility for the events that led up to them killing somebody get off Scot free. Incidents that never would have occurred absent their preceding actions.

 

[What if...?]

Absolutely a false post!! Made up nonsense! You understand that KR was attacked?

Yes. By the first guy, who was reportedly nuts. The other two were apparently chasing an active shooter.

So two problems here. KRs gun incensed a crazy person. No gun, no crazy person acting crazy. No crazy person acting crazy no first shooting. No first shooting and nobody chasing the shooter. (In a world of regualr mass shootings. So not a preposterous response. Even making the guy with the gun the "good guy with a gun" in this situation.)

All "fog of war" "tragedy of errors".

And ALL centered around the illegally purchased gun carried by a minor.

 

[SMTA]

Both of the cases currently at hand FFS.

All of the defendants charged armed into situations that went sideways as a result.

And killed people in the process.

Maybe you can answer the question no one else has:

Is there any point at which you lose your absolute right to defend yourself? Where your actions make you partially or completely responsible for killing someone as a result?

As it stands you can walk around with a gun and say or do any ****ing thing you want and if you're called out on it shoot that person and claim you were scared so you had to defend yourself.

"Defense" has an "in place" "attacked while minding your own business" connotation. And is perfectly appropriate.

But the way many laws are written they facilitate assholes acting outrageously and legally killing the consequences of their actions.

All involving running towards a confrontation. Not being attacked while minding your own business.

And you never ever ever want to discuss how the person on the other side of the question felt or thought about what was happening.

Like in the arbury case. I would have taken one look at those guys and worried they were looking to replace their worn out Geek. Or any number of other things. None of which would bode well for me if they caught me.

Y'all convicted arbury of a crime instantly. And he therefore deserved whatever happened to him, in the street, without a trial.

When not a one of you would have taken the same position if three black guys were chasing you in two cars with guns and demanding you stop and submit to them.

Your observations are offensive to honest folks who carry weapons every day, who are reserved, calm, level headed, and not looking for trouble.
Not everyone who carries a gun is an asshole.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Both of the cases currently at hand FFS.

All of the defendants charged armed into situations that went sideways as a result.

And killed people in the process.

Maybe you can answer the question no one else has:

Is there any point at which you lose your absolute right to defend yourself? Where your actions make you partially or completely responsible for killing someone as a result?

As it stands you can walk around with a gun and say or do any ****ing thing you want and if you're called out on it shoot that person and claim you were scared so you had to defend yourself.

"Defense" has an "in place" "attacked while minding your own business" connotation. And is perfectly appropriate.

But the way many laws are written they facilitate assholes acting outrageously and legally killing the consequences of their actions.

All involving running towards a confrontation. Not being attacked while minding your own business.

And you never ever ever want to discuss how the person on the other side of the question felt or thought about what was happening.

Like in the arbury case. I would have taken one look at those guys and worried they were looking to replace their worn out Geek. Or any number of other things. None of which would bode well for me if they caught me.

Y'all convicted arbury of a crime instantly. And he therefore deserved whatever happened to him, in the street, without a trial.

When not a one of you would have taken the same position if three black guys were chasing you in two cars with guns and demanding you stop and submit to them.

You are bouncing all around the place?
More a rant than anything else?

This pargraph is absolutely false.
Again you understand that KR was attacked? That is what the jury found.

"As it stands you can walk around with a gun and say or do any ****ing thing you want and if you're called out on it shoot that person and claim you were scared so you had to defend yourself.

Show me where this has happened?
What is described above is not self defense.

I think the the guys in the Arbury trial will be found guilty!

 

[Mycroft]

Doesn't have to be "said", that's the way the laws are written. They don't place any limits on preceding behavior. No mitigation. No responsibility for the shooter's part in the situation. None.

Bullshit.

You didn't watch any of the Rittenhouse trial, did you? The prosecutor went all into what happened BEFORE Rittenhouse was attacked.

You can be certain that his preceding behavior was considered by the jury.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Yes. By the first guy, who was reportedly nuts. The other two were apparently chasing an active shooter.

So two problems here. KRs gun incensed a crazy person. No gun, no crazy person acting crazy. No crazy person acting crazy no first shooting. No first shooting and nobody chasing the shooter. (In a world of regualr mass shootings. So not a preposterous response. Even making the guy with the gun the "good guy with a gun" in this situation.)

All "fog of war" "tragedy of errors".

And ALL centered around the illegally purchased gun carried by a minor.

Oh my... the weapon was NOT illegally purchased! He could legally carry it.
It seems that you don't have a factual understanding of the KR trial?

 

[What if...?]

Your observations are offensive to honest folks who carry weapons every day, who are reserved, calm, level headed, and not looking for trouble.
Not everyone who carries a gun is an asshole.

Never said they were. Just that those who feel empowered NY doing so can do as they please the way the laws are written.

And it's not those you mention that are the problem.

But I have yet to get anybody to acknowledge that the current situation is problematic. Which is likely just holding the line against the gun grabbers in the case of the reasonable.

In both of the cases in the news, nobody would have died absent the actions of the shooters beforehand. In KRs case a Dumbass kid out of his depth.

In the other vigilantes with a hard on.

I suspect the latter are going to jail. I always doubted the former due to the charges filed. I never agreed with first degree murder in that one.

 

[What if...?]

You are bouncing all around the place?
More a rant than anything else?

This pargraph is absolutely false.
Again you understand that KR was attacked? That is what the jury found.

"As it stands you can walk around with a gun and say or do any ****ing thing you want and if you're called out on it shoot that person and claim you were scared so you had to defend yourself.

Show me where this has happened?
What is described above is not self defense.

I think the the guys in the Arbury trial will be found guilty!

The first guy, yes. The other two were apparently trying to apprehend an active shooter. I suspect that the Guy with the gun could also have claimed self defense had he shot KR. And likely would have won.

Which creates the situation where "whoever dies first loses". And nothing else matters.

 

[What if...?]

Bullshit.

You didn't watch any of the Rittenhouse trial, did you? The prosecutor went all into what happened BEFORE Rittenhouse was attacked.

You can be certain that his preceding behavior was considered by the jury.

Not the video where he said he'd be firing rounds at "looters". Not the throwing up white power signs with the proud boys while drinkoing at a bar. (I don't think he was the one hitting the girl. Too fat.)

Then there was the prosecution not being able to call the victims victims but the denfense could call them rioters and looters.

See? I dis watch a good bit of it. I work, so couldn't sit through all of it.

 

[Common Sense 1]

The first guy, yes. The other two were apparently trying to apprehend an active shooter. I suspect that the Guy with the gun could also have claimed self defense had he shot KR. And likely would have won.

Which creates the situation where "whoever dies first loses". And nothing else matters.

Incorrect.... that is not what the jury found.
Go look at the trial thread and try to get the correct information on what happend.

I am done now.

 

[What if...?]

Oh my... the weapon was NOT illegally purchased! He could legally carry it.
It seems that you don't have a factual understanding of the KR trial?

It was a straw purchase by definition. You can't even buy a gun for your kid with their money. You can buy one for them as a gift, but you retain ownership until they are old enough to own it and transfer ownership.

And I read the relevant statute and the carve out was for hunting, not defense of someone else's property on city streets. I suspect there will be an appeal based on the judge's behavior throughout.

 

[What if...?]

Incorrect.... that is not what the jury found.
Go look at the trial thread and try to get the correct information on what happend.

I am done now.

The jury found what the judge led them to find. Which may have been appropriate due to the first degree charges. I never thought that was inappropriate and said so contemporaneously.

I am done now too. Don't bother replying.

 

[Glitch]

As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, what's taking place after yesterday's (acquittal) verdict brings grave concern. There's been this odd uptick with the call to arms on social media. One by a (R) US Rep and another by a senior (extremist supporter of white nationalists) researcher at Media Matters. One would think that such call to arms would be associate with a guilty verdict of somebody famous for killing protesters, but to have a call of arms for that person's acquittal appears to be of a political nature. In my opinion, it's being geared at Democratic supporters. In an already toxic atmosphere where gun violence is increasing, I can not and will not support this call to arms. Yes, even if it were directed to Trumplican supporters, this is dangerous messaging for our society. The 2nd amendment is there for US citizens to protect themselves in a defensive manner. It's not there for US citizens to take up offensive positions like some militias do. Now, after yesterday's verdict, I am afraid that more individuals will abuse our right to bare arms.

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous' After Rittenhouse Verdict

Rep. Cawthorn Tells Followers to 'Be Armed, Be Dangerous'

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias': Far Right Reacts to Rittenhouse Verdict

'Buy Firearms and Form Christian Militias':​

Following the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting case, far-right groups and individuals have started reacting—some celebrating, others calling to take up arms.

For example, on Friday, Gab–the so-called free speech social network that is popular on the far-right–reportedly sent out an email encouraging followers to "buy firearms and form Christian militias," reported Alex Kaplan, a researcher with the watchdog group Media Matters.


A channel for the far-right group, the Proud Boys, on the group chat application Telegram included a commenter writing, "There's still a chance for this country," NPR reported. In another channel, a member wrote, "The left wont stop until their bodied get stacked up like cord wood."

Keep in mind that this sort of thing only happens in Democrat-controlled shitholes where they encourage lawless activity, support rioting and the destruction of other people's property.

If you live anywhere else in the US that is not under complete Democrat-control, then you most likely live in a safe environment where the law, and more importantly, law enforcement is respected. Thankfully, that is the majority of America. The violent anti-American Democrat trash are isolated to Democrat-controlled shitholes where they can be protected by their ilk. You will not find them anywhere else.

Leftist filth don't care about your rights, as the media repeatedly demonstrates. They want all those who disagree with their totalitarianism to be utterly destroyed. That is why if you live in a Democrat-controlled shithole, you would be wise to be well armed. Leftist scum have already slaughtered more than 100 million in the last century alone. Don't allow them to slaughter you during this century.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It seems that some of the left and our anti-gun freinds do not support people being to defend themselves or their family's.

I support the right to self defense. I also think it is terrible judgement to go to a riot, much less go to one armed, and just godawful parenting to drive your 17 year old kid to a riot.

That just seems like common sense to me, "Common Sense 1".

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It was a straw purchase by definition. You can't even buy a gun for your kid with their money. You can buy one for them as a gift, but you retain ownership until they are old enough to own it and transfer ownership.

And I read the relevant statute and the carve out was for hunting, not defense of someone else's property on city streets. I suspect there will be an appeal based on the judge's behavior throughout.

Double jeopardy would prevent such an appeal in a criminal case.