Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

HomeCheese said:
milo-handsign-jpg-1576535624.jpg



"How the alt-right co-opted the OK hand sign to fool the media"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/03/ok-sign-gesture-emoji-rightwing-alt-right

Please don't pretend it the OK sign, makes you look like liars.
Click to expand...
Its inconceivably stupid how people on this site thinks he's using the OK hand sign when he does it in not just 1 picture, but poses it in every picture, along with buddies whos also using the same handsign.
 
Queen B said:
Its inconceivably stupid how people on this site thinks he's using the OK hand sign when he does it in not just 1 picture, but poses it in every picture, along with buddies whos also using the same handsign.
Click to expand...


Like good old Kyle is just being silly, trolling. Truth be told, I am sure his family loves white suprematist jokes.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
We both know that clause was never intended to give the fed carte blanche over anything and everything, which is exactly what the expanded (after 150 years as a nation) "interpretation" does. Banning particular goods across the land is not regulating commerce. It completely shuts down commerce, rather than ensuring it functions smoothly. Regardless, it doesn't supersede the Bill of Rights. If it did then the feds can similarly outlaw whatever news stories they like. And pornography. And religions organizations.
Click to expand...
Agree that this is a tricky area. While I totally see your point and logic here, but it’s very tough to find where the line is. Machine guns aren’t exactly banned, but are so strictly regulated that they’re almost impossible to obtain. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of guidelines given by the Courts on what can and can’t be regulated this way and to what degree. That said, I also don’t know that I’d say that the Fed has “carte blanche over everything”—but it’s difficult sometimes to understand where something might run afoul of the 2A. For example, could we regulate handguns to the same degree? I think the answer is “maybe” lol. It would really depend on the legislation in question.



Your first paragraph is a distinction without a difference. As you point out, to disallow the individuals from assembling is to disallow assembly altogether. Saying that the group can exist but no individuals may join is absurd. Fwiw, free speech and freedom of the press are not solitary activities. Both require a listener or audience. It's the conveyance of ideas from an individual to another, or group of individuals, that's protected. In isolation, an individual can keep and bear arms far more meaningfully than one can partake in freedom of the press.

Regarding your second paragraph, here's about a 15 minute read that answers why the mention of well-regulated militia was included. As to Miller, you've left me a little confused. In the very short decision rendered, there is no claim that Miller (who was unconnected to any militia) had the right to keep and bear arms. What the federal government asserted was that his short-barreled shotgun was not among the arms protected by the 2nd. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, it's not about him as an individual having the right, it's about what he exactly has a right to.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure where we got off track/had a misunderstanding here, but I suspect it’s because Miller is such a goofy decision regardless of which side of the debate one falls on. That decision essentially held that Miller (the person) had no individual right to keep and bear a sawed off shotgun. Why? Because it had no connection to militia service. This has been understood by many (including me) to mean that the Court was adopting a collective rights approach. But it’s also true that many (including you) think it holds an individual rights approach. Maybe it’s best that we put Miller aside somewhat? Here’s a quote and source that sums up the problem (emphasis is mine):
Of course, both individual and collective right theorists still claim Miller supports their position. Individual right theorists generally emphasize that the Court addressed the merits of Miller’s Second Amendment claim, rather than dismissing it for lack of standing. Some go further, and argue Miller simply failed to show short-barreled shotguns have military uses. Collective right theorists highlight the Court’s conclusion the Second Amendment “must be interpreted and applied” with the end of preserving the militia in view and argue the Second Amendment simply protects the right to serve in the militia. Many note the absurd consequences of holding the Second Amendment protects only military firearms, rather than those actually used by civilians. In the end, it’s a stalemate. On its face, Miller does not clearly adopt either theory of the Second Amendment.
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...012a672da72167/1600229932628/Brian-L-Frye.pdf
In simplest terms, do we think that our Founders’ over-arching purpose of the 2A was to make sure that each citizen had the right to bear arms? Or do we think that the purpose is to make sure that the Feds couldn’t infringe on a state’s right to have a militia for defense? It seems clear to me—and the source you provided gives several examples—indicating the purpose came about because of distrust of standing armies, the fear that a national army could overtake a state, and a state’s need to defend itself against invasions and uprisings. Namely, it is a collective right. But it truly is difficult to discern if it’s collective, individual, or some hybrid of the two, because the amendment is so poorly written.
You mention that freedom of press or assembly isn’t a solitary activity. Neither is serving is a militia. You may have thought that by acknowledging that the militia is made up of individuals, that I was acquiescing to an individual rights theory, but that’s simply not true. The 10th Amendment (for example) has never been used to defend individual rights, it quite clearly deals with collective rights. Yet, who are the States and the People ultimately if not a collective of individuals? If anything, your agreement that the word “State” in the 2A means the states in the union, and they originally had the right to regulate as they see fit has put you in the camp of believing it was intended to be a collective right. Since we are not playing Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, you are not stuck with this as your Final Answer ;)
As a side note, I’ll mention that if the state is going to be limited, or if we are going to believe that the 2A is incorporated to the states, shouldn’t it occur under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (as Clarence Thomas believes), and not the Due Process Clause (as Scalia believes)? Using the Due Process Clause seems odd to me.
We don't need to go down the rabbit hole comparing these rights and to what extent they are protected. The important point of comparison is folks not accepting the rights of others, not making an honest attempt to amend the Constitution as prescribed, and driving a big wedge between the population in the process.
Click to expand...
A fair point overall, and I agree this is a rabbit hole best served for another day.


I agree that's the stated purpose as to the 2nd's inclusion, not that it's the sole reason for protecting the right (eg. self-defense, hunting, target shooting). Just the reason that pertains to the formation of the federal government. I agree with Presser on a couple things. One is that the 2nd imposes a restriction on only the federal government. The other is that the militia system relies on an individual's right to keep arms.
Click to expand...
While looking at an amendment’s background, as we have done, is very helpful to understanding its purpose or inclusion, we ultimately are left to judge based on the text itself aren’t we? The 2A says nothing about hunting, sport, or self defense. I suppose you could try and make the argument that since the amendment mentions the security of the state, that is equivalent to self defense. But clearly the amendment says that regarding militias, not individuals. If there is an individual, constitutional right to self defense, the 5th Amendment seems more likely, or possibly even the 10th.
I think we are in a dangerous position these days, in that the old militia system is obsolete and we are no left to “interpret” the 2A solely as it relates to defense or sport, when it says nothing about either one. Possibly the 2A is some hybrid of individual and collective rights, but this is difficult to discern.

Believing "the people" really means state governments, the above would make no sense. One would have to believe the federal Bill of Rights contained an Amendment that prohibited the state from disarming itself. The states' role in national defense is outline elsewhere in the Constitution, and this sort of provision is a duty owed to the federal alliance, not a freedom from it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’m understanding your point here. I don’t think I’d say (or that I have said) that “the People” means “the State,” but I am saying that the purpose of the amendment isn’t that individuals can have guns. The purpose is that the federal government can’t disarm a state’s militia, which is made up of the People. Therefore the federal government is unable to restrict this right insofar as the right pertains to service in a militia.
 
BFoe said:
Agree that this is a tricky area. While I totally see your point and logic here, but it’s very tough to find where the line is. Machine guns aren’t exactly banned, but are so strictly regulated that they’re almost impossible to obtain. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of guidelines given by the Courts on what can and can’t be regulated this way and to what degree. That said, I also don’t know that I’d say that the Fed has “carte blanche over everything”—but it’s difficult sometimes to understand where something might run afoul of the 2A. For example, could we regulate handguns to the same degree? I think the answer is “maybe” lol. It would really depend on the legislation in question.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, which takes precedent over duties assigned to the federal government, the line should be drawn with the widest berth in mind. Don't you think? Those rights were enumerated because they are the most common areas of abuse by governments. Of course intrusions upon them will always be framed as public safety rather than oppression.

Insisting the commerce clause means the government can ban anything that could potentially have an impact on commerce (interstate or otherwise), which is our current legal precedent, does indeed give the federal government carte blanche. But public sentiment prevents government from utilizing it to the full extent of that viewpoint.


BFoe said:
I’m not quite sure where we got off track/had a misunderstanding here, but I suspect it’s because Miller is such a goofy decision regardless of which side of the debate one falls on. That decision essentially held that Miller (the person) had no individual right to keep and bear a sawed off shotgun. Why? Because it had no connection to militia service. This has been understood by many (including me) to mean that the Court was adopting a collective rights approach. But it’s also true that many (including you) think it holds an individual rights approach. Maybe it’s best that we put Miller aside somewhat? Here’s a quote and source that sums up the problem (emphasis is mine):
undefined
Click to expand...

Miller should be completely ignored. Only the government presented a case, the decision was not well thought out, and it ran afoul of 150 years of common practice in America. Considering there'd been a Civil War, if the feds thought they could enact gun control then afterwards would have been a great time to do it. Lastly, it's my understanding that SCOTUS in that era is widely viewed as "government friendly". Both Miller and Wickard v. Filburn are abominations.

I'll add that this "collective" vs. "individual" rights business is mumbo-jumbo. You're placing that label on there to say that if you aren't doing something as a group then the individual has no right to engage in the activity themselves. While freedom of assembly is used as the other (than the 2nd) example, I've never heard of it having any actual application. Can you provide examples of a group being able to form but no individual is allowed to be there independently?


BFoe said:
In simplest terms, do we think that our Founders’ over-arching purpose of the 2A was to make sure that each citizen had the right to bear arms? Or do we think that the purpose is to make sure that the Feds couldn’t infringe on a state’s right to have a militia for defense? It seems clear to me—and the source you provided gives several examples—indicating the purpose came about because of distrust of standing armies, the fear that a national army could overtake a state, and a state’s need to defend itself against invasions and uprisings. Namely, it is a collective right. But it truly is difficult to discern if it’s collective, individual, or some hybrid of the two, because the amendment is so poorly written.
You mention that freedom of press or assembly isn’t a solitary activity. Neither is serving is a militia. You may have thought that by acknowledging that the militia is made up of individuals, that I was acquiescing to an individual rights theory, but that’s simply not true. The 10th Amendment (for example) has never been used to defend individual rights, it quite clearly deals with collective rights. Yet, who are the States and the People ultimately if not a collective of individuals? If anything, your agreement that the word “State” in the 2A means the states in the union, and they originally had the right to regulate as they see fit has put you in the camp of believing it was intended to be a collective right. Since we are not playing Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, you are not stuck with this as your Final Answer ;)
As a side note, I’ll mention that if the state is going to be limited, or if we are going to believe that the 2A is incorporated to the states, shouldn’t it occur under the Privileges and Immunities Clause (as Clarence Thomas believes), and not the Due Process Clause (as Scalia believes)? Using the Due Process Clause seems odd to me.
Click to expand...

The above seems to ignore what we went through great lengths to establish earlier. It's a matter of strategy and tactics. The strategy for maintaining a free state is to have a capable militia. The tactic is to make sure the people have arms. It's plain English. Look at the 1st Amendment. It doesn't say you personally have any rights. The only mention of who any of those rights belong to is regarding assembly, and that's a collective right in your view, so it doesn't allow for you as an individual to really do anything. If the 1st prohibited the feds from infringing upon the people's right to free speech, because open discourse is essential to politics, you damn sure wouldn't say the feds could outlaw anything that wasn't a public speech on a political topic.

Did Heller cite due process and not P&I? That does seem both inconsistent and illogical.


BFoe said:
While looking at an amendment’s background, as we have done, is very helpful to understanding its purpose or inclusion, we ultimately are left to judge based on the text itself aren’t we? The 2A says nothing about hunting, sport, or self defense. I suppose you could try and make the argument that since the amendment mentions the security of the state, that is equivalent to self defense. But clearly the amendment says that regarding militias, not individuals. If there is an individual, constitutional right to self defense, the 5th Amendment seems more likely, or possibly even the 10th.
I think we are in a dangerous position these days, in that the old militia system is obsolete and we are no left to “interpret” the 2A solely as it relates to defense or sport, when it says nothing about either one. Possibly the 2A is some hybrid of individual and collective rights, but this is difficult to discern.
Click to expand...

The right to self-defense is unquestionable. It's like the right to breathe. Well, it used to be. lol. But the real question is where does the Constitution authorize the feds to outlaw it? They are granted specific powers and that's it, rather than have all the power unless specifically prohibited. Which of course you know.

But let's look at it from the stated purpose of militias. The militia man was expected to show up with his own gun and ammo. How that alone doesn't make it crystal clear that outlawing my ownership of an arm useful for that purpose is un-Constitutional I don't know. Even Miller used that as a test. Taking it further, if I show up unarmed, because the state will supply the weaponry upon my arrival, I won't know how to use it due to lack of familiarity. Drilling down further, what weapon will the state supply? They weren't doing R&D. Technology changes. With no private ownership there wouldn't have been development. The enemy showing up to the fight with repeating rifles while I'm armed with my government supplied musket I've never used up until that day is the opposite of well-regulated. It's plain to see how private ownership is the tactic that enables the strategy of a militia securing the goal of a free state.

So while one could argue that hunting is not covered, ownership and target practice are fundamental to the purpose.


BFoe said:
I don’t think I’m understanding your point here. I don’t think I’d say (or that I have said) that “the People” means “the State,” but I am saying that the purpose of the amendment isn’t that individuals can have guns. The purpose is that the federal government can’t disarm a state’s militia, which is made up of the People. Therefore the federal government is unable to restrict this right insofar as the right pertains to service in a militia.
Click to expand...

If "the people" doesn't mean the state, and the people's right to keep an bear arms is secured by the 2nd, then there's no other honest reading than to conclude that we as individuals can't be deprived of arms. Instead of entertaining the minutiae of the concept, the founders wrote it out in one simple, broad stroke.

Let's look at it from another angle. Here's what the feds are authorized to do.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

Pretty clear in this section that militias exist beyond the federal discretion, since it's assumed that at any given time the feds will only be employing "Part of them" some of the time. Further evidence of that is the feds being allowed to "call forth". That implies the militia already exists. If, as you suggest, the 2nd only protects those actors currently employed by the states from being disarmed, it would be useless due to redundancy. And far better phrased by simply saying that "...the right of the states to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. The only way it makes sense to include the 2nd is if it means exactly what it says. There are three parties to the Constitution. The feds, the states, and the people. The above sections allow for the right of the feds and the states to be armed. The 2nd is there to ensure that you and I also have that right.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rittenhouse-accused-violating-bond-going-104353204.html

Judge declines new arrest warrant for Kyle Rittenhouse
TODD RICHMOND
Thu, February 11, 2021, 2:43 AM


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A judge on Thursday refused prosecutors’ request to issue a new arrest warrant for an 18-year-old from Illinois accused of killing two people during a police brutality protest in Wisconsin last summer.

Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger alleged that Kyle Rittenhouse failed to update his address when he moved out of his Antioch apartment in November, amounting to a bail violation.

In addition to a new arrest warrant, Binger asked Judge Bruce Schroeder to increase Rittenhouse's bail by $200,000. Rittenhouse's attorneys countered that Rittenhouse is in hiding due to threats.

Schroeder refused both of Binger's requests. During a testy hearing the judge said people out on bail often fail to update their addresses and aren't arrested. He ordered Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards to turn over Rittenhouse's current physical address but said it would be sealed to the public and only he and the Kenosha County Sheriff's Department would have access to it.

The judge refused to give Binger the address, saying he didn't want more violence in Kenosha. The move — and the comment — left Binger flabbergasted.

“I hope you're not suggesting sharing this with our office would lead to further violence,” Binger said. “We are not the public. We are the prosecuting agency. I have never heard of a situation where the information has been withheld from my office."

Schroeder said the sheriff could handle any further bail violations. Binger countered that Rittenhouse doesn't live in Kenosha County so the sheriff can't touch him. Schroeder cut Binger off in mid-sentence and ended the hearing.
Click to expand...
 
“I hope you're not suggesting sharing this with our office would lead to further violence,” Binger said. “We are not the public. We are the prosecuting agency. I have never heard of a situation where the information has been withheld from my office."
Click to expand...
like we haven’t seen activist DA running amock the whole summer.
 
Last edited:
Queen B said:
Its inconceivably stupid how people on this site thinks he's using the OK hand sign when he does it in not just 1 picture, but poses it in every picture, along with buddies whos also using the same handsign.
Click to expand...

How does that change what happened? He was still attacked and it was still self defense regardless of how much of a flaming twat he apparently is.
 
HomeCheese said:
So now you are the one infatuated with the protesters. Just admit it, you hate BLM protesters. You are probably glad they were shot.
Click to expand...

The first guy? Yes, absolutely. He raped 4 boys under the age of 11 and was a lawless and aggressive dickhead. The other two-I think they thought they were doing the right thing, but they still attacked kyle with lethal force in the form of a skateboard and a handgun.
 
nhbbear said:
How does that change what happened? He was still attacked and it was still self defense regardless of how much of a flaming twat he apparently is.
Click to expand...

Because the threshold is whether or not a reasonable person would believe they were in imminent threat of losing their life and had no recourse but to use lethal force.

I think anyone standing about with an AR and seeing a plastic bag hurled their way and thinks to themselves "I'm about to die," is a complete and utter coward.

You were in law enforcement. What do you think would happen to you if you lit up a protestor in similar circumstances?

And of course that ignores whether you think Rittenhouse provoked said assault by standing about with an AR. Even if you find that not ok for guy #1, how about #'s 2 and 3? Because if I'm standing about in a crowd and some asshat with a rifle starts popping off, it's certainly conceivable that I might react by moving towards the guy in order to protect myself. But according to most of this thread, you can walk about with a gun, shoot anyone at the slightest provocation, and anyone who reacts by closing the distance with you is now also a lethal threat.

It's beyond stupid. With this logic, and can just stroll down Main Street brandishing a firearm and if anyone shows the slightest aggressive action towards me, well I can just kill them, and the next guy, and the next guy; all under the farfetched hypothetical of "Maybe something super lethal was in that bag."

We've gotten so dumb in our take on self defense that the armed man is the poor of a piece of goddamn plastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,601
Messages
55,503,917
Members
174,798
Latest member
Mattesson Gaucher

Share this page

Back
Top