Kyle Rittenhouse Pleads for Donations, Says 'Legal Bills Are Piling Up'

I just appreciate you making me aware of the situation. Definitely got the back of anyone using self defense

 

hmmm but that is only PART of the full sentence

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Says nothing about personal self defence

 

You must go back to its original intent which was clearly made to be used. Multiple quotes prove that.

 

So…. Time machine mind reader???

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why do so many ignore the first bit?

 

It's been interpreted numerous times. Look it up. And stop ignoring the last bit.

Stop trying to argue technicalities. Rittenhouse defended himself against people who were trying to kill him and that's why he wasn't convicted. Now those people and their families are trying to get a payday out of this.

 

You're right. Actions do have consequences. The two killed and Gaige were all shot as a consequence of attacking Rittenhouse.

And before you try and claim that if Kyle hadn't gone there they never would have been shot. The same argument can be made for the three people shot. They also wouldn't have been shot if they had never attacked Rittenhouse or even showed up to the riot in the first place.

 

So has the Bible
But the point I am making is that it says NOTHING about personal self defence - that was left to state law

 

What sort of “attack” did they do?

 

Again, it's been interpreted to mean exactly that. Look it up.

Your desperate technicalities won't work, this has been argued to death for a couple hundred years now....you won't be the one to win your sides argument.

 

Because so many on the other side like to ignore the reason for the BoR's in the first place and appear to be horrible at grammar. The BoR's was written in order to keep the Federal Government from infringing on The Peoples Rights and ...get this...States Rights. The Federal government was supposed to be subservient to the The People and The States. The 2nd Amendment forbids the Federal Government from making laws to prevent The States AND The People from being Armed. The States were Armed via militia's (which were made up of...get this... PEOPLE!). The people were armed via guns, swords etc etc. That is why there are two clauses in the 2nd Amendment. The Militia clause, and the Peoples clause.

Since leftists are intent on taking away the Rights of The People to bear arms and have no problem with States having militias, there is no need to talk about, or defend States Rights to have a militia. Which is why that "first bit" is ignored. Its not relevant to the argument at hand. Which is the disarming of The People. Not the disarming of The States of militias.

 

It's interesting nobody in America has ever won a civil suit for wrongful death against a person found not guilty in court...

I guess there's a first time for everything..

/s

 

Rittenhouse should have never been charged. Virtually everyone knows by now that the US courts system is thoroughly corrupt.
There is no peace because there is no justice.
The lawsuits against the police and Kenosha have some merit. The lawsuits against Rittenhouse are, IMO, an abuse of process and should have been dismissed with prejudice shortly after they were filed.

Rittenhouse is probably wasting money on lawyers unless he chooses to join the lawsuits against the police and Kenosha for not keeping the peace.

 

Virtually everyone. Not everyone?

 

Didn't you watch the trial? The first one to be shot attempted to attack Rittenhouse with a chain wrapped around his fist while saying he was going to kill Rittenhouse. The second one attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard to the head. The third one tried to shoot Rittenhouse with a gun. Evidence of all of this was presented in the trial. Which is why Rittenhouse was not found guilty.

 

You would be better suited to interpret your constitution. Does the the freedom of speech only apply to religion? Because by your interpretation the whole of the first amendment only applies to religion.

 

The whole argument that “the people” is interpreted as the state blows me away. How many amendments in the civil rights mentions “the people”? In all those amendments it is committed n knowledge that it is a right afforded to citizens of the United States…. Speech, assembly, due process… All of them but the second??? They need to reevaluate their argument.

 

Oooh! Look a a big fat semicolon, not a comma

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
Punctuation is important

 

Yes, as wording matters. The people in every single amendment that mentions the people means the United States citizens. The militia at the time of writing is the people. Quotes can be found of the founders referencing the people as the militia. That does not negate the peoples right to bear arms.

 

I think a lot of Rittenhouse's issue could have been avoided if he was not a 17 year old kid running around with an assault rifle.

 

The issue was that he, and others, even needed to be there to help protect businesses from being vandalized and burned down to begin with. That is what drew Rittenhouse and people like him to the area in the first place. Remember, this all happened on the 3rd day of riots happening in that town. When this kind of thing happens (riots), people are bound to stand up and protect themselves and others. Its only natural. And its the right thing to do.

 

They needed to be there?

 

He didn’t have an assault rifle but what he had gave no one the right to try and murder him.

 

Yes, needed to be there.

 

Sorry. Semi-automatic carbine with a stock and barrel intended to allow close combat and rapid target acquisition while remaining light weight and capable of firing 700 rounds a minute?

 

Why?