Originally posted by: Tom
with a military grade assault rifle that a 17 year old kid is not aloud to carry
Private ownership of a military grade assault weapon is illegal. Kyle legally owned the gun. The 3 felons should not have been at the riot with illegal guns.
Nobody should have been at the riot. That said, what was Kyle supposed to do when the 3 felons threatened his life? Liberals can't answer the question.
OK, Tommie-poo, you pitiable moron, I'll answer you. He should have raised his weapon, backed away, and told his "attackers" to not come any closer. This includes the guy he shot but didn't kill. Tommie-poo, liberals can and have answered your dumbass question. What do you do when you feel threatened? Start gunning down everyone you think is threatening you?
It doesn't matter that Rittenhouse's victims were felons. They have the same rights as anyone else does as far as their personal safety is concerned. It's not OK to gun people down just because they're felons.
There's a basic civil, legal, and moral concept, which dates back to ancient Greece, that citizens are obligated to avoid escalating conflicts. This includes the "duty to retreat." The Killer Kid violated this concept by arming himself and deliberately traveling to an area where there was unrest. Then, he reacted to being threatened as a child would--with extreme violence.
I know that the standard conservative meme, which I'm sure Tommie-poo subscribes to, is the "stand your ground" bullshit, which basically says that if you have a manly man GUN, you're entitled to kill anyone you want--all you have to do is say that you felt threatened. Oh, what a wonderful RepubliQ world! Vigilantes, cowboy justice, gun love, casual violence, and the RepubliQ enthusiastically approving of it all.
I assume, Tommie-poo, that you would be perfectly cool with someone shooting you--or your daughter--or your brother--because they had a manly man gun and felt threatened.