Total topics: 2
Something that occurred to me is whether or not one supports Kyle Rittenhouse or the 2 dead men in terms of morality, one must definitely be horrified at guns and America's easy-access culture regarding them.
In any other highly developed nation, it would horrify everybody in the society that somebody as young as Kyle Rittenhouse could just so easily grab an AR-15 and, on the other end of the spectrum, that the rioters could all be possessing pistols fully able and ready to hurt people (Rosenbaum couldn't get one because he's mentally unwell and I guess didn't want to risk getting one illegally).
The fact that guns themselves are so easy to access, as well as the fact that the possession of an AR-15 via cross-state methodology for Rittenhouse to end up possessing it doesn't warrant any legal penalty, makes me wonder what exactly Americans consider 'too far'.
At what stage, after how many incidents of either mass shootings or back-and-forth killing scenarios between criminals (Rittenhouse wasn't a criminal before and perhaps after this but the back-and-forth element was there, no matter who we support it was about to happen possibly with Huber and the guys, I'm not denying that)?
I am not making this thread to talk bad about Rittenhouse, something deeper that's an issue is how gun-happy American culture in general is. There is something deeply disturbing about the fact that events like this don't make people hate guns but instead be fervently proud of how they were wielded instead.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
- Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was inititally arrested) at a BLM protest? If he was there to 'defend' then who was it who requested a 17-year-old to carry an AR-15 across state lines in order to 'defend' something? Isn't requesting that illegal?
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- Do you agree that if (and it is the case that) the 'mob' only set on Rittenhouse after the Rosenbaum murder on an unarmed man, then it suddenly becomes much clearer who was the fundamental attacker vs defender in the aggression that ensued. Huber was proactively trying to get Rittenhouse to disarm and not escape so thata) he can't go on to murder any othersb) cops could arrive beforeĀ he's gotten away, to arrest him for the Rosenbaum murder
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics