What a bonkers country - America in all of its glory.

The whole thing sets a precedent for “self defence” where you carry a gun get into an argument and shoot someone citing self defence.

Absolute madness you can just carry a gun to “defend a town” against protesters and shoulder no blame at all for killing someone whatever the circumstances.

The biggest argument against allowing gun ownership is how a situation like this can escalate so quickly just because of the gun.

And the fact he’s become a political figure with certain politicians using him to gain popularity shows the state politics in that country is in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Don't be so stupid, all it needs is the dEmocRAts To GrOW A pAir oF bAlLs

---

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry 🤔

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry ��

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

---

Maybe you should look again at the comments you're replying to with a fresh pair of eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry ��

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

---

Did you miss this or are deliberately ignoring it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTaL ITK

it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. For an amendment to be approved, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass the amendment. ... Then, three-fourths of all states must ratify the amendment, either in their statehouses or at a special convention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw

The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.

---

Absolutely correct and it shows how insane America is. At the very least this judgment will vindicate and encourage armed vigilantism. Surely the US police need this judgment like a hole in the head. You can just see the right wingers promoting this case as "Kyle's Law".

As for Shittenhouse, what's the bet he can look forward to a hugely lucrative future in US Republican politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

The whole thing sets a precedent for “self defence” where you carry a gun get into an argument and shoot someone citing self defence.

Absolute madness you can just carry a gun to “defend a town” against protesters and shoulder no blame at all for killing someone whatever the circumstances.

The biggest argument against allowing gun ownership is how a situation like this can escalate so quickly just because of the gun.

And the fact he’s become a political figure with certain politicians using him to gain popularity shows the state politics in that country is in.

---

I'd disagree that it sets a precedent. The gun laws are so loony out there that these things have already been happening. Those proud boy idiots who travelled from protest to protest were armed in lots of cases. Lots of armed militias were at numerous protests, on a broad spectrum from people dedending their businesses, to white power militias, to black panthers.

The main difference here is that a mentally ill criminal seemed to decide he'd try and commit suicide by attacking a pasty, out of his depth, armed loser. Bit of sympathy for the 2nd and 3rd lads who got involved, they may well have thought they were challenging a roving gunman. As you say though, when gun laws are so ridiculous this kind of thing ca happen all to easily.

I thought it wouldn't be long in coming, the Trump endorsement:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttenhouse.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

I'd disagree that it sets a precedent. The gun laws are so loony out there that these things have already been happening. Those proud boy idiots who travelled from protest to protest were armed in lots of cases. Lots of armed militias were at numerous protests, on a broad spectrum from people dedending their businesses, to white power militias, to black panthers.

The main difference here is that a mentally ill criminal seemed to decide he'd try and commit suicide by attacking a pasty, out of his depth, armed loser. Bit of sympathy for the 2nd and 3rd lads who got involved, they may well have thought they were challenging a roving gunman. As you say though, when gun laws are so ridiculous this kind of thing ca happen all to easily.

---

Was he a mentally ill criminal?

It’s very similar to the Trayvon martin “self defence” if you want to kill someone in America you just need to wind them up into attacking you and then you can legally shoot them. How does this not create a precedent for that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...veway-n1282285

That happened since. Some people are desperate to shoot someone and this encourages them because it gives a potential way out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Was he a mentally ill criminal?

It’s very similar to the Trayvon martin “self defence” if you want to kill someone in America you just need to wind them up into attacking you and then you can legally shoot them. How does this not create a precedent for that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...veway-n1282285

That happened since. Some people are desperate to shoot someone and this encourages them because it gives a potential way out.

---

I think if you watch the video of Rosenbaum attacking and chasing him it will show that. This case doesn't quite fit with the established left v right, black v white type arguments that people want to have. It was quite a unique case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

I think if you watch the video of Rosenbaum attacking and chasing him it will show that. This case doesn't quite fit with the established left v right, black v white type arguments that people want to have. It was quite a unique case

---

I don’t see how that goes against anything I’ve said or how one video of someone shows they’re a mentally ill criminal.

All I’ve said is carrying a gun and killing someone shouldn’t pass without punishment otherwise you’ll get all sorts of “self defence” situations created as an excuse to kill.

And a gun escalates situations like this into people getting killed when in most countries it would just be a normal altercation.

I don’t have a dog in the fight I just can’t believe carrying a gun and using it to kill someone can pass with 0 punishment and even people supporting him as some kind of hero all because of bonkers politicisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

I don’t see how that goes against anything I’ve said or how one video of someone shows they’re a mentally ill criminal.

All I’ve said is carrying a gun and killing someone shouldn’t pass without punishment otherwise you’ll get all sorts of “self defence” situations created as an excuse to kill.

And a gun escalates situations like this into people getting killed when in most countries it would just be a normal altercation.

I don’t have a dog in the fight I just can’t believe carrying a gun and using it to kill someone can pass with 0 punishment and even people supporting him as some kind of hero all because of bonkers politicisation.

---

He was a mentally ill criminal, he then chased and tried to beat up a bloke with a gun.

Like I said, I disagree that this case sets a precedent , as there have been mobs of loons with guns at all the protests. The gun laws out there are utterly ridiculous, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cityhammer

I can see a private prosecution coming! And a likely successful outcome.

---

Yep.

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

---

As I said, bonkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

He was a mentally ill criminal, he then chased and tried to beat up a bloke with a gun.

Like I said, I disagree that this case sets a precedent , as there have been mobs of loons with guns at all the protests. The gun laws out there are utterly ridiculous, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent.

---

But who incited it? Because it seems you can wind someone up wait until they attack you then kill them and call them a criminal.

If I wanted to kill someone that’s exactly what I’d do. Then make it very political and the idiots will lap it up.

Do you know what setting a precedent means? Because what you’ve said is completely unrelated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

But who incited it? Because it seems you can wind someone up wait until they attack you then kill them and call them a criminal.

If I wanted to kill someone that’s exactly what I’d do. Then make it very political and the idiots will lap it up.

Do you know what setting a precedent means? Because what you’ve said is completely unrelated.

---

Why are you so weirdly combative? Yes I understand what setting a precedent means.

As I explained, I don't think this sets a precedent as it was a very unique situation. You know it's perfectly fine for us to disagree? That's kinda what a discussion is about. Why so defensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Why are you so weirdly combative? Yes I understand what setting a precedent means.

As I explained, I don't think this sets a precedent as it was a very unique situation. You know it's perfectly fine for us to disagree? That's kinda what a discussion is about. Why so defensive?

---

Not being defensive just your post seemed completely unrelated. It’s you who read it as defensive, don’t use it an excuse to shoot me :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Not being defensive just your post seemed completely unrelated. It’s you who read it as defensive, don’t use it an excuse to shoot me :hehe:

---

Well thankfully for the pair of us we have more enlightened gun laws in this country !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Well thankfully for the pair of us we have more enlightened gun laws in this country !!

---

I think that’s why I find it all so frustrating, it just all seems absolute madness to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

---

Is he a vest wearer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Is he a vest wearer?

---

Very good :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Is he a vest wearer?

---

:hehe: i never noticed that:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

As I said, bonkers.

---

Indeed

He is on Facebook and the amount of hardware he has is scary, even has a 50 cal that he used in Afghanistan ( of course not the same gun ) which I am pretty sure is the M107

Bonkers :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Is he a vest wearer?

---

No, more a muscle vest type of guy :thumbup: